The sitting begun and suspended on Monday 16October 2000 was resumed at 10.30 am (Mr Speaker in the Chair).

Budget Proposals (2001-02)

Mr Mark Durkan: In accordance with paragraph 20 of strand one of the Good Friday Agreement, the Executive has agreed a Programme for Government, incorporating a Budget. In line with section 64 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, I am today laying before the Assembly a draft Budget in the form of a programme of expenditure proposals for the financial year 2001-02.
As the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister have explained in the letter which Assembly Members received this morning, this Budget is fully in line with, and guided by, the priorities and actions in the Programme for Government which was agreed yesterday evening by the Executive. I understand that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister intend to make a statement to the Assembly next week to coincide with the publication of the Programme for Government. The programme will be more far-reaching in timescale and scope and will include a wider range of policies and proposals for programmes than the Budget, which is limited at this stage to presenting proposals for expenditure plans for 2001-02.
This Budget and next week’s Programme for Government announcement constitute a very significant stage in the implementation of the agreement and the cementing of our new institutions. The fact that I am today presenting an agreed Budget on behalf of the Executive shows that sharing a wide range of public responsibilities can allow us to reach agreement on priorities and actions for our whole community. That lays an important foundation for all our future work.
In contrast to my statement in December last year, this is not a set of hand-me-down Budget proposals, simply rolling forward the plans inherited from the period of direct rule. Our plans for 2001-02 include the first evidence of how we will begin to make a difference, both through the allocation of spending in line with our priorities and through the way in which Ministers and Departments, together with North/South, East/West and European structures, carry through and implement new ways of working. The implementation of the agreement will make clear just how fundamental is the change in governance of this region.
I stress again that this Budget has been collectively agreed by the Executive, and my role is to introduce it on behalf of the Executive. The work on the Programme for Government and the Budget has involved intensive discussion between Ministers and Departments and has been among the most important collective undertakings of the new institutions so far.
The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister will have more to say about that process in their statement next week. I will therefore move on to the detail and substance of the financial proposals for 2001-02, which form an important part of this work.
Our discussions on spending plans have been taken forward following the announcement in July by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the new total allocations for our services for the period 2001-04. The outcome of the 2000 spending round included a number of changes of detail, and not all of these had been clarified at the time of the Chancellor’s announcement.
There were discussions on provision for agriculture, and the departmental expenditure limit announced in July has been augmented by additional amounts in respect of common agricultural policy modulation, as announced in early August. Also, responsibility for the welfare-to-work programme has been transferred more fully to the devolved institutions because over the period of the 2000 spending round the funding will no longer come from the windfall tax.
As Members are aware, there was an error in the Northern Ireland departmental expenditure limit published by the Treasury. That will be corrected in a way that has a minimal effect on our spending plans. Thus, the new departmental expenditure limit for 2001-02 is £5,733·5 million and not £5,667·4 million as announced in July. Members will note that I am not claiming that this increase in the headline figure represents further new money. On the contrary, as the changes are largely technical in nature, the spending power underlying this figure is essentially the same as announced in July.
The new figure represents an 8·1% increase over the corresponding figure for 2000-01, but that is affected by the transfer of provision for welfare-to-work. When the spending power from the regional rate is also taken into account, the amount available for allocation to Departments is up by 7·3% on 2000-01 — almost 5% in real terms.
That is an important boost in our spending power. It means that these spending plans can and do include important advances and developments across a range of services. However, we remain disappointed that the share of spending power we have received is a markedly lower increase than applies in England, Scotland or Wales. As I have said, we are continuing to press for a more equitable and sustainable approach to the allocation of spending. We find the Barnett formula increasingly unsatisfactory and are determined to work for a better and fairer system of distributing resources.
In making spending decisions, we want all of the resources available to be channelled more markedly towards Programme for Government priorities. This means applying a firm steer to our resource plans, whether for ongoing activities or new initiatives and whether for recurrent or capital spending.
A new and important way in which we intend to direct resources and public services in pursuit of our region’s priorities is through the creation and use of Executive programme funds. These will serve to increase the emphasis on implementation of the priorities in the Programme for Government. This new approach should be pursued in ways that integrate the roles of the different Departments. We need to work together more effectively, with both policy and practice focused on obtaining the best possible outcome, rather than being dominated by the point of view of any individual Department. Some details of our proposals for Executive programme funds are included in the Budget document laid before the Assembly today.
The first fund that we are creating in the Programme for Government is a social inclusion and community regeneration fund. We want to use this as a focus for action against poverty and to support community measures in both urban and rural settings.
It should also cover actions in relation to community relations and cultural diversity and could be used as a further means of working in partnership with the European Commission through the structural funds and the community initiatives.
The second is a service modernisation fund. There is much to be done to promote efficiency and innovation within Departments and the wider public sector — for example, through e-government and invest-to-save measures. We are determined to promote efficiency of delivery and to constrain the overheads attached to service delivery. We want to use carefully targeted funds to lever in new actions which will be of benefit to customers.
The third is a new directions fund. We want to see innovation and change in the delivery of programmes across the spectrum of our services. There is a need to refocus away from past patterns and to set new directions, whether in the delivery of health services or in the context of working with the business sector to promote economic development.
The fourth is the infrastructure capital renewal fund. The Executive has also concluded that significant funding is required for investment in the renewal of the infrastructure of the region. We have to address this in a coherent way across a range of sectors, including transport, energy and telecommunications.
Finally, there is the children’s fund. We are proposing a fund to provide support for children in need and youth at risk. This will have some similarities with the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s children’s fund but will have a wider scope, embracing aspects of the functions of several Departments. Again, this has the objective of making our services work effectively together for the good of children.
We have identified three actions which would fit within the framework of the Executive programme funds but where the Executive, for reasons of priority or urgency, has decided to proceed with an allocation through departmental budgets straight away.
First, the Budget plans include £2·2 million for this year towards a pilot programme for housing schemes designed to meet the particular needs of travellers. This is very relevant to the aims and objectives of the social inclusion/community regeneration fund.
Secondly, we are providing resources in the Budget for the development of the beef quality scheme, which is an emerging recommendation from the vision group convened by the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. This is the kind of innovative action which would have been appropriate for the new directions fund. However, as with the pilot scheme for travellers’ accommodation, rather than delay unnecessarily, we are releasing resources for this purpose now, as a first example of the kind of measure which might be promoted in this way.
The third and final such action concerns the railways. We have considered, as a first example under the heading of the infrastructure/capital renewal fund, our response to the railways task force, which reported to the Minister for Regional Development in September. We have decided to make provision for the first stages of the safety work identified in the AD Little report and for the procurement of new rolling stock for the network. Again, this is the sort of spending proposal which would fit appropriately within the framework of the proposed infrastructure Executive programme fund. However, the Executive believes that the urgency of the need for decisions on the railways issue is such that it would be appropriate to make provision now, although, like all allocations in the Budget, individual spending items will remain subject to the usual procedures for appraisal and value-for-money consideration. This decision will allow some urgent work to proceed while some of the longer-term decisions about aspects of the network are assessed as part of the important work on the regional transportation strategy.
If we were to take the three items I have mentioned as possible first fruits from the Executive programme funds, together with the £16 million we have been able to set aside for the funds themselves for the first year of operation, that would amount to almost £40 million.
We also propose to set aside a minimum of £100 million in 2002-03 and of £200 million in 2003-04 for the Executive programme funds. Thus this important element of spending within the total departmental expenditure limit will be marked out and managed in new ways, with Departments and Ministers working together rather than continuing the patterns we inherited.
I will now discuss allocations to departmental programmes. We have marked out a significant allocation of £191 million for Agricultural and Rural Development — on a like for like basis, this is a 9·6% increase. The provision includes the beef quality programme, important new elements to assist the education and training of farmers and the development of the Department’s responsibilities for animal health, regulation of services and the veterinary and science services.
The plans provide for an important financial boost for Culture, Arts and Leisure, with an extra 19% for the arts, 5% for libraries, 6% for museums and an additional allocation for important aspects of sport. This will be the subject of later announcements by the Minister of Culture, Arts and Leisure.
The Budget allocates just over £1·3 billion for education, marking a 7·1% increase. This will create scope for significant increases in recurrent and capital budgets for schools. This year, special one-off allocations, worth £14·7 million, were made to schools. Not only are we continuing this, but the amount will be increased to £20 million in 2001-02. Further investment of £9·5 million is being made available to tackle deficiencies in the schools estate, including the provision of disabled access and the replacement of temporary classrooms. Further details will be announced by the Minister of Education in due course.
The headline figure for total spending by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment is affected by the reduction in European structural funds as a result of the move from Objective 1 to transitional Objective 1 status. When European structural funds spending is excluded, the budget for the Department shows a 5% increase between 2000-01 and 2001-02. A share of the new peace programme, the details of which are still being worked out, is to be devoted to certain aspects of economic development. The aspects chosen will mark a unique response to the context we are working in, and they can and should make a significant contribution to cementing peace and breaking down barriers in society.
The Budget also provides for a £140 million allocation for aid to industry and a further £41 million for the small business sector. There is a specific provision of £5·6 million for the information age initiative.
The budget proposed for the Department of the Environment is £100 million — an increase of 14% on this year’s amount. We have provided for substantial developments to speed progress on the implementation of European Directives on environmental issues, including those on air quality and waste management. There is also additional provision for the Planning Service and the Environment and Heritage Service.
I should also say a word about my Department, where the total budget will be £113 million. Most of the Department of Finance and Personnel’s functions support the work of, or provide services to, other Departments. The budget for next year makes special provision for the cost of next year’s census.
In the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety, the budget will grow by over £150 million — or 7·2% — to some £2·3 billion. Within this total, over £1·16 billion will be available for hospital and community health services, and £460million will be available for personal social services.
Additional provision is also being made to address winter pressures and waiting lists, while family health services show an increase in funding of over 8%. The proposals provide for further improvements to cancer services, including the recruitment of additional specialist staff and the development of palliative care services. Provision for personal social services will increase by 10·5%.
For the Department of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment, I propose an increase of 12% for further education, including £8million extra for capital, which will bring that budget up to almost £20 million for the coming year. There is also an increase of 11% in spending on higher education, strongly demonstrating our commitment to these important services.
I have already mentioned the major investment in safety work on the railways. This is a major part of the 10% increase in the budget for the Department for Regional Development. The other major increase for that Department arises because the Executive has confirmed that spending on water and sewerage will increase by £14·5 million in the year 2000-01 to sustain our progress on the essential work of improving this service.
The plans make important provision for the major welfare reform initiative in the Department for Social Development as well as for the initiative for travellers. This involves working in partnership with other interested Departments to ensure a major change in the way services are delivered to the public, and that is proceeding in parallel with the work of equivalent organisations in Great Britain. The housing budget will also increase by over £5 million.
Provision is also made for the costs of the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, which will total some £29million next year. This provision includes support for the new institutions including the North/South Ministerial Council secretariat, the Executive Committee secretariat and the Civic Forum. There is also provision for funding the Equality Commission, for developing the work of the Office’s equality unit and for grants to promote community relations.
These plans also provide for significant increases in spending on the North/South implementation bodies. An initial stance was adopted at the plenary meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council last month on the budget for these bodies. Today’s Budget includes confirmation that the Executive has endorsed the £11 million proposed for the Northern contribution to the work of these bodies for the calendar year 2001. The Ministerial Council and the bodies have an important contribution to make to the work planned for the immediate future, and their budget reflects that. The public spending total for the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment also includes a substantial element for the new North/South tourism company.
The Budget proposals also include appropriate provision for the Assembly. I understand that the proposed allocation of £38·8 million will be sufficient to allow the development of services in the Assembly itself to proceed as planned by the Assembly Commission, building on the good work and progress made this year.
These are some of the main features of the spending proposals. As well as the Treasury allocation for Northern Ireland, these plans are supported by the revenue from the regional rate. The Executive has decided to roll forward the increase of 8% in the domestic regional rate which was assumed at the time of the 1998 comprehensive spending review. It is envisaged that an increase of 6·6% in the non-domestic regional rate will be required to sustain spending levels as proposed in this Budget.
This package of spending proposals represents a significant step for our devolved institutions. We want to ensure that the resources available are aligned with our priorities and best used through new ways of working with the full range of departmental expenditure and in particular with the Executive programme funds. There is much to be done between now and December. During that period the Executive will continue to work on the detail and significance of the Executive programme funds and will consider what indicative plans to set for departmental budgets for 2002-03 and 2003-04, which are not included in the Budget document published today. I want to emphasise that our consultation with the Assembly is genuine and significant. In this context it would be premature to announce spending plans for the forward years now when we are deliberating with the Assembly and its Committees on the plans for the first year.
Many Members will be aware of the discussions over recent days on the procedures in the Assembly for bringing this Budget process to a conclusion. The Executive is committed to listening carefully to the views from the Assembly, and I am sure that all Ministers will want to have detailed dialogue on the position with their respective Statutory Committees over the next few weeks. I am particularly grateful to the Finance and Personnel Committee — it is determined to find ways to advise and assist on the overall Budget position. It is important that this work is taken forward in spite of the constraints it will place on the Hallowe’en and Christmas recesses on this occasion. I propose to bring a revised Budget forward for consideration by the Assembly in December in the light of comments made by the Assembly. I am relying on the Finance and Personnel Committee to help interpret and draw together these comments through discussion and a report.
The spending review outcome in July, and this Budget, are the first allocations made on the new basis of resource budgeting. This is a major change in procedures, which will sharpen up the relationships between targets, spending and outcomes and mean better management of capital spending. This is in line with the Government Resources and Accounting Bill that I introduced at First Stage yesterday.
I welcome the greater emphasis in the resource accounting and budgeting process on the setting of outputs and target measures. This is exactly what we are trying to achieve in the Programme for Government, and I should make it clear that the allocations proposed in this Budget will be confirmed only if there is material and significant progress on the development of this aspect of planning in the next few weeks.
We need to move beyond a narrow focus on financial inputs. We are committed to developing a clear relationship between budgets, actions and output measures through the settlement of public service agreements in the new year, which will include clear targets for delivery. It is important that the Executive and the Assembly know what they are getting for the public spending we are committing. It will not be enough for Departments simply to assume or assert that it is necessary to continue to operate existing spending patterns. We all need to understand more clearly what is being secured so that if there are deficiencies in performance and achievement, they can be rectified by intervention and change. This is an important task that all the Statutory Committees, and not least the Public Accounts Committee, will want to take a keen interest in.
Similarly, we also intend to consult widely on the impact of the Budget proposals on equality and targeting social need (TSN). This is an important priority in our determination to promote equality of opportunity in all aspects of public services. In practice, the impact on the different groupings that we need to monitor for equality purposes will derive from the more detailed level of spending by Departments. However, it is important that this Budget provides a framework that includes promoting equality and the new dimension of TSN as being of major significance.
This Budget is an important step in the evolution of our new institutions. Incorporated in the full Programme for Government, on which the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister will make their statement next week, it represents a major milestone for the Executive. It demonstrates that we can and do work together effectively in pursuit of the interests of all the people in this community.
In commending this draft Budget to Members, I invite the Assembly to work with us in making a difference to our society and economy through the real and positive politics which the agreement has made possible.

Mr Speaker: Members have an hour for questions to the Minister.

Mr Francie Molloy: A Cheann Comhairle. I welcome the Budget statement. It is very important that we are dealing today with our first in-house Budget. Previously we simply got an add-on to the Budget produced by British Ministers. Does the Minister have a figure for the shortfall between the bids made by the different Departments and the allocations that have been made today? I agree with the Minister’s statement about the Barnett formula. However, how does he propose to rectify the situation? The Barnett formula does not recognise need within the community, and if we are to redress that need, we must have a change of direction.
Can the Minister give Members an assurance that in future years the Budget will be the first item on the agenda following the summer recess? This would give Committees time to adequately scrutinise it, and would facilitate the co-ordination of Committees, allowing the Finance and Personnel Committee to do its job properly and advise the Minister.

Mr Mark Durkan: I cannot give the exact amount by which the bids from the various Departments exceeded the amount available for departmental expenditure. Bids outstripped resources by a considerable margin. Indeed, bids will always exceed the resources available by large and unrealistic amounts.
We have to graduate from bidding, which we are all very good at, to making actual decisions and choices. This Budget will reflect the sort of priority choices and commitments that will be apparent in the Executive’s Programme for Government. In turn, the various Departments will have to make their choices and decisions in accordance with those priorities.
Mr Molloy also raised the point about the Barnett formula. The Executive has already declared its determination to seek significant improvement and change. We need to prepare best cases. It is not enough just to complain about Barnett. We have to identify a better, fairer formula, and to do that we have to take account of a variety of factors, not just here but elsewhere, because, of course, other pressures and interests are involved.
Regarding the inadequacies of the Barnett formula, even for this year, it should be remembered that through the intervention of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, who met the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in early summer, we got a better Barnett outcome. They were able to ensure that spending on London Transport was counted, for comparative purposes, in the Barnett formula. At that time we secured favourable treatment. We should use that as a lesson for future work, which will not be easy.
I accept Mr Molloy’s final point that the timetable for the Budget imposes constraints on Committees, Departments and the House. However, these are the circumstances in which we find ourselves. We need to get decisions on broad Budget lines in December, and that dictates the timetable.
In the next few months the Assembly will be endorsing a Programme for Government which will cover a prospectus to take us forward a number of years. I hope that will help to set some of the basic precepts for budgetary work in future years. We should be able to bring forward more advanced budget proposals at an earlier stage. I hope to be in a position to bring forward budget proposals, as has been suggested, in September rather than October. We can all ensure that that is so by treating this year’s Budget and, in particular, the Programme for Government and its implications for future years in a constructive and thoughtful way.

Mr James Leslie: I welcome the statement on the Budget. The Minister was fortunate to be able to deliver it in the warm afterglow of the largesse of the Chancellor, who is priming the pumps for a general election. Had that not been the case, it might have been a very sombre day, as he sought to meet all the demands from Departments with the previous pool of money.
The statement has a theme running through it reflecting high costs to do with devolution. In the not-so-distant past this issue was discussed, and it was asserted that in due course it would be possible to streamline the administration so that these increased costs could be netted out. When does the Minister expect to be able to bring forward proposals, perhaps in a future Budget, that reflect some rationalisation and streamlining of the costs of administration?

Mr Mark Durkan: If the Treasury spending review had been less generous in increases to various services in England, we would have less money to distribute. That is one of the vagaries of the Barnett formula. It does not, of itself, address our particular needs but reflects circumstances in other places. If we had fewer resources at our disposal we would still face the task of prioritising and make choices. It does not matter if we have less or a lot more. Whether or not we are successful in challenging or changing Barnett, there is still going to be a point where we have to make choices based on our priorities.
Mr Leslie raised the costs of devolution. Not everything that can be identified as a cost in relation to new institutions is actually new spending. For example, the North/South bodies will be employing some 900 people next year. However, those are not all new jobs. Many of them incorporate work undertaken under previous arrangements. They are not all new or additional costs.
It is obvious that extra costs arise where you have an Assembly, with Departments having to respond to, deal with and service the Assembly and its Committees. There are other duties such as the equality duty. Those costs are there, but Departments and the Government at large are going to have to try to manage resources to ensure that, as far as possible, spending goes into services rather than structures and systems. The Executive is determined to affect this. Proposals will develop over time in that regard.

Mr Speaker: I encourage Members and the Minister to be as concise as possible. Standing Orders limit the time for questions to one hour. That may or may not be appropriate for such substantial issues as the Budget, but it is what the agreed Standing Orders allow. We must try to work as best we can within them.

Mr John Dallat: Can the Minister explain how the contents of this Budget will impact on issues like new TSN and equality?

Mr Mark Durkan: That is one of the areas on which we want to consult while the Budget is going through further consideration.
The Budget derives from, reflects, and is meant to service, the aims and ambitions of the Programme for Government. The Programme for Government has been proofed in terms of equality and new TSN. That should work through to the Budget. However, we still want to consult in relation to the Budget itself. It is up to the various Departments, when they make their detailed allocations under this Budget, to show due regard for equality and new TSN considerations. Moreover, the Executive Programme Funds will have particular regard to the equality and new TSN commitments, as well as to the priorities that will be reflected in the Programme for Government.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Can the Minister assure us that the figures we have today are absolutely accurate and that there will be no announcement made later about a possible inaccuracy? Can he also tell us whether he will find extra money for the pressing needs of the farming industry? I congratulate him on his absolute honesty. In the footnote to page eight he makes clear that, although there may be a larger percentage at the end of the day, because of other matters that is seriously cut into. He knows, and this House knows, that the farming industry is in a state of catastrophe. While there may be some welcome uprise in the industry, the farming community has an albatross of debt about its head.
Agri-money amounts to many millions in Europe, but it is not released because of the failure of the British Government to match it. Did the Minister, when he talked to the Treasury, make any representations on that matter, to enable that money to come directly to those farmers who find themselves in great and terrible difficulties?

Mr Mark Durkan: To my knowledge, the figures are accurate. There is no known inaccuracy. This is a draft Budget, and we will possibly be coming forward with a revised Budget in December. These proposed allocations will be subject to consideration by the Committee, including Dr Paisley himself. If there are any problems or issues in relation to particular figures, I am sure they will emerge in the course of that consideration.
Dr Paisley also made the point that we have not gilded the lily in terms of the increase. I have tried to take that approach on everything. We could have made play of the headline figures in relation to the departmental expenditure limits, but we decided to treat it on the like-for-like basis. I make the point, however, that, on the like-for-like basis, 9·6% is still a considerable increase. I hope it will help the Minister and the Department in the important work that they are taking forward. Many of the issues affecting the farming community and the whole agriculture sector are, of course, the subject of consideration by the vision group. The commitment that we have made to the beef quality scheme — as one of the emerging points to come from that — shows that we will consider thoughtfully what emerges from that exercise.

Mr Seamus Close: Does the Minister not agree that, in some respects, we have put the cart before the horse? We have Budget proposals, but we have yet to see the Programme for Government. It is like buying the bricks before the architect has completed the plans for the house. It is putting things the wrong way round. I hope that that will be corrected for future years.
Does he also agree that a proposed 8% increase in the regional rate is incorporated in the figures? It is a nebulous tax that has been criticised by virtually every councillor in Northern Ireland, and that will continue to be the case.
Does the Minister agree that it is unlikely that we will find acceptance of this type of increase from councillors who may also be Members of this House and who have criticised it in the past? We can not be hypocritical about it. Also, what increases are being proposed for Housing Executive rents?

Mr Mark Durkan: Mr Close has raised several points. There is the question of putting the cart before the horse. This Budget reflects the priorities and principles of the Programme for Government that has been developed by the Executive. This will be particularly apparent to people when the programme is published next week. It is also important to remember that this is a draft Budget that is being laid before the House for consideration. Proposals for the Programme for Government will follow. These will cover a longer time span than this Budget, which is merely the draft Budget for the next financial year. Of course, there are other factors to be developed. People will see that the Programme for Government and the Budget proposals will work well and mesh well together. The real task will be ensuring quality in these developments, on the parts of the Executive, the Assembly and its Committees. There will be a vote on the Budget in December, and there will be further time to work on, develop, improve and amplify the Programme for Government. Decisions will be taken on that by the Assembly in the new year.
I understand that many councillors dislike the regional rate because it is confusing and leads to a misrepresentation of councils’ position on the district rate. We have said that we will bring forward a review of rating policy. However, without this rate increase it will be impossible to make some of the allocations announced today.
With reference to housing, the housing budget will be increasing next year. Under the comprehensive spending review further cuts were programmed, but we have reversed the situation. The figures for the housing budget, which fall within finances allocated to the Housing Executive, assume rental income figures on the basis of GDP plus 2%. If this assumption did not hold, and was not carried through, there would be a loss of £5·4 million in rental income to the Housing Executive.

Mr Billy Hutchinson: I welcome this statement because it gives us an opportunity to examine the Executive’s proposals. However, I do agree with MrClose that we have probably put the cart before the horse. The Executive’s programme funds should be welcomed, as it looks as if an attempt to intervene at the right level has been made. However, can the Minister tell us how much of the proposed Budget will be spent on quangos? Does he have any plans to streamline them considering that we have a local Assembly and local Ministers running Departments who are accountable?

Mr Mark Durkan: Mr Hutchinson has made a number of points, as well as welcoming the opportunity that this Budget presents. He particularly welcomed the Executive’s programme funds, and I am glad of that. I hope that Members will be able to help us develop this over the coming weeks when the Budget is considered in the Committees.
Again, on the question of whether the Budget or the Programme for Government comes first, the Assembly will have both. The First and Deputy FirstMinisters have indicated that the Programme for Government has been agreed by the Executive Committee. They have indicated that it is to be made clear to Members — in case they do not believe me — that the Budget does reflect the principles and priorities that inform the Programme for Government. I hope that Members are reassured by that.
On the question of the administrative costs of quangos, and so on, we obviously want to deal with all those issues as part of the broader review of public administration that has already been referred to by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. Clearly there are issues for the different Departments and their respective Committees to address. I make the point though that all such bodies should not be classified in the same category. They have distinctive roles and purposes — we must be sensitive to those realities and not make rash changes. However, we are determined to improve administrative efficiency as part of our efforts to ensure that these representative arrangements lead to more responsive structures.

Ms Jane Morrice: I agree with MrClose and Mr Hutchinson about this unusual approach. I would have preferred more time to examine the Budget proposals before we came to question the Minister on these matters.
I want to ask two specific questions. First, is there any new provision to continue bridging the gap between PeaceI and PeaceII funding? The Minister will be aware that funding for women’s centres, cross-border operations and others is running dry. Funding is necessary. Are there any plans to make loans available? Secondly, some years ago we were informed that there would be a substantial financial peace dividend due to the scaling down of security operations in the new political climate. Can the Minister say how much has been saved as a result of this and where the money has gone?

Mr Mark Durkan: With regard to the first question, I say again that the Budget could only be presented after the recent agreement on the Programme for Government. Members would have been even more critical if the Budget proposals were published in advance of agreement on the Programme for Government.
In terms of the funding gap between Peace I and Peace II, this is the Budget for the financial year beginning April next year. We are determined to work during the coming months on the structural funds, and on the Peace II programme in particular, to ensure that the operational programmes and the programme complements are agreed and that Peace II is up and running as soon as possible. If we were to make budgetary provision for gap funding out of next year’s annual Budget, people would assume that we were working on the basis that those programmes were not going to be up and running until well into that financial year. Therefore the question of gap funding will be re-examined if and when needs are highlighted — and many of those needs are not being represented to the Department of Finance and Personnel. If representations are being made, many of the details of gap funding are not available to the Department of Finance and Personnel. They are certainly not being brought to my attention. Where such problems exist, the Executive, as we have already demonstrated, will try to make some redress, but it will be in the context of this year’s funding rather than next year’s Budget.
As for the scaling down of security and the peace dividend, any subsequent savings are not part of the devolved Budget. That is part of Northern Ireland Office expenditure so I cannot say exactly what has or has not been saved.

Mr Robert McCartney: The Minister has laid a great deal of stress on administrative efficiency. I suppose that that means savings. A rough calculation shows that the cost of running the 11 Departments, including the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, is £631million. In addition to that, there is the cost of the Assembly, estimated at £40million, making a total of £670million for the year to 2001. Can the Minister give comparative figures for the cost of running the previous six Departments under direct rule for the same period? Secondly, can he explain why it is necessary to have 108Members in this Assembly for a population of 1·5million, when Scotland has 129Members for a population of 5million? Its Assembly has far greater administrative —

Mr Speaker: Order. The latter part of the Member’s question is clearly outside the remit of the Minister of Finance. The first part, of course, is not.

Mr Robert McCartney: Does the Minister find that having 10 Departments, each with costs, is consistent with administrative efficiency?

Mr Mark Durkan: I make the point that I made earlier: the running costs we identify are not all new ones. Clearly additional costs were incurred in setting up Departments, and additional overheads were incurred by Departments gearing themselves to relate to the public and to the new institutions in a different way. The point about those expenses is that they should pay for themselves given the quality of outcome and output we expect to result. The Assembly will improve the work of Government Departments by making them better informed and more responsive to our local and regional needs. I will write to Mr McCartney with precise figures and other relevant information.
The question of the size of the Assembly was a matter for the agreement. Mr Ervine has suggested that we might reduce its size from 108 to 107 Members. I suppose that if we were to do that in the style of the recent television programme ‘Big Brother’ we could bet on who was most likely to be nominated.

Mr Speaker: Order. Since I am sitting on this side of the Desk, I rule any question on the size of the Assembly inadmissible.

Rev Robert Coulter: It is satisfying to note the increase in the health budget and the breakdown of funds to particular sections of the Health Service. Will the Minister confirm that this figure of over £150 million is the largest increase that the health budget has ever had? And can he assure the House that the public service agents concerned will spend this money primarily on patients’ needs and avoid wasting it on excessive administrative structures?

Mr Mark Durkan: I welcome what the Rev Robert Coulter has said about the significant increase to the health budget. In agreeing that increase, the Executive Committee was recognising the very serious pressures faced by the Health Service. The Minister has made her priority very clear: as far as possible, that money will be used to improve services. The increase in moneys will clearly go into that, and I hope that the Assembly and the departmental Committee in particular will assist the Minister and the Department in that, as the Executive Committee wishes to do.

Mr Joe Byrne: I welcome the setting up of the five Executive programmes funds ranging across the socio-economic spectrum. I see them as a clear indication of devolution’s contributing to policy development and promoting corrective action for the public. Will the Minister explain whether the social inclusion fund could be used to make good lower funding levels for some European Community initiatives by giving more than the minimum 25% match funding?

Mr Mark Durkan: Mr Byrne’s welcome for the new Executive programme funds is most heartening. The Executive has indicated that it has yet to develop the criteria, the ideas and the management plans for these funds. We are open to positive suggestions from the Assembly and its Committees on this matter.
As the paper indicates, linkages to EU structural funds and the community initiatives will be relevant to the social inclusion/community regeneration fund. Theoretically, if we decided to do so, we could use these funds to supplement or improve the minimum match funding for community initiatives. While we have received a lower allocation for some of the community initiatives than anticipated, we have received a higher allocation for others. That has seen the match-funding requirement rise for some and decrease for others. However, it is an issue that can be given further consideration.

Mr Nigel Dodds: Will the Minister detail the amount of money to be spent on the North/South tourism company? He indicated in his speech that the funds for that would increase substantially as part of the budget for the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment. Will he also state the amount from the budget for the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister that will be contributed to the North/South Ministerial Council secretariat?
There has been a substantial increase in the money allocated to the all-Ireland North/South implementation bodies — some of their budgets have increased by 100%, some by 46% and others by 34%. In view of the pressures on education, health, housing, urban regeneration, roads, water services, and so on, does the Minister not agree that that money would be better spent on improving services in Northern Ireland, rather than on the servicing and administration of all-Ireland bodies set up to forward the political agenda of the Belfast Agreement?

Mr Mark Durkan: As the Budget paper indicates, £5·8 million has been provided for the tourism company, whose task is to market the island of Ireland as a tourist destination. If people considered the significance of the tourism industry for economic development they would recognise that we need to invest in it, not least in marketing. There are advantages for Northern Ireland with regard to marketing in this context.
We are providing £600,000 towards the cost of the North/South Ministerial Council secretariat. Last year was the first year in which the North/South implementation bodies were operational. They were not operational for the full year, but next year we are budgeting for a full year’s operation. Mr Dodds said that some of the budgets for these bodies were being increased by as much as 100%. The budget of the Special EU Programmes Body is being increased from £0·3 million to £0·6 million, so it is coming from a very low base. We are coming to a stage, as the various new funding measures come into place, where the Special EU Programmes Body will be undertaking more work. The message that I am getting from Assembly Colleagues is that they want to see that body coming forward and doing more as those programmes develop.

Mr Gerry McHugh: A Cheann Comhairle. I welcome the Minister’s statement, particularly with regard to agriculture. The Budget covers a lot, but there are gaps. Even though it is only a draft plan, I would have liked to see some provision for such things as grants for updating farms and farm equipment. There are also animal welfare requirements and European health and safety regulations that farmers have to meet. That will be of great cost to farmers, and there is nothing in the Budget —now or in the future — to assist them. Neither is there any installation aid, similar to that in France, to provide for young farmers going into agriculture. Is there any scope for any of those issues in the present Budget?

Mr Mark Durkan: I thank Mr McHugh for his question and for his broad welcome for the Budget statement. Anybody looking from the perspective of any Department can identify with what he would see as gaps in the budget. We were not able to cover all the bids that we had, and we were not able to cover the bids that we did not have. With regard to the Member’s proposals, it is up to the Minister and the Department, in consultation with the departmental Committees, to consider the potential value or benefit of other schemes. We provide a significant allocation for food and farm policy in the budget. The Department will develop the details of those policies.
The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development’s vision group has already started to indicate some emerging themes. In this Budget we have demonstrated a willingness to support some of those emerging themes.

Dr Ian Adamson: I thank the Minister for a well-balanced statement. Does he consider that the budget allocated to the Department of the Environment for planning and road safety is sufficient to meet its needs? Is it sufficient, given the sterling efforts of the Minister of the Department of the Environment, and also taking into consideration the Belfast metropolitan area plan and other area plans, and the terrible carnage on our roads?

Mr Mark Durkan: I thank DrAdamson for his question and for the compliment on a well-balanced statement. The significant increase in allocations to the Department should help it meet the pressures it faces. The Minister has been at pains to point out the nature and extent of the pressures that the various services face, particularly the Planning Service and the Environment and Heritage Service, both of which are getting significant increases. The Committee and Members of the House have placed great emphasis on the need for further funding for road safety. We have gone a long way to meeting that case in these Budget proposals.

Mr Arthur Doherty: Those of us who live on the periphery of the periphery welcome the creation of the infrastructure fund. Could that fund be used to support an extension to the gas network beyond the Greater Belfast region, especially noting that the interconnector is being supported?

Mr Mark Durkan: The Executive programme funds announced today will be the subject of further development work by the Executive Committee. The precise terms and criteria of the respective programmes still have to be worked on, and there may be slightly different provisions with regard to the various funds, if that is the will of the Executive and if that is what comes through from the Assembly and its Committees.
Energy is one of the areas that could be covered in the infrastructure fund. As to precisely what measures would be covered, it would be premature for me to say because programme funds must work on the basis of giving thorough and proper appraisal to any bids coming from Departments or elsewhere. There are provisions for the Executive programme funds to consider a broad range of infrastructure needs.

Mr Peter Robinson: I congratulate the Minister on the presentation of his first home-grown Budget. It would be churlish not to do so. While the tradition in another place is for the Chancellor to have a whiskey in front of him, the abstemious Minister just has a glass of water, which I hope is from the Department for Regional Development’s Water Service.
I also appreciate his modus operandi. There are great difficulties in operating a system wherein there are major party political difficulties in the way Departments are being operated. He has managed to stand back from that and take a more clinical and professional approach, which is appreciated by those Ministers who do not form part of the Executive Committee. I hope that my complimentary remarks will not damage him within his own party, but I think that they need to be put on record.
I welcome the good start that has been made in terms of Department for Regional Development funding. There has been major neglect of the infrastructure in this Province. It can not be turned around overnight, but a start has been made in this Budget. It is essential that this be maintained. Forward planning is absent from these proposals. Will the Minister tell the Assembly when it will have the opportunity to see the plans for further years, so that we will know whether it is a flash in the pan or part of a process to deal with the serious neglect of our infrastructure?
Does the Minister not recognise that many in the community who need services and provision will see the waste of expenditure on the Civic Forum, on having 10 Departments where half a dozen would have done, and on rampant "North/Southery"? Is there not a requirement to audit the value of these services rather than spending money for political purposes? We could be doing a real job in improving the day-to-day life of people in this Province, rather than improving the pockets of politicians and those on the periphery of politics.

Mr Mark Durkan: I thank Mr Robinson for what I assumed to be compliments in the earlier part of his remarks. I have said before that I am very conscious that, as a Minister, I have taken a Pledge of Office that I will serve all the people of Northern Ireland equally. That means that, as Minister of Finance and Personnel, I have to have regard to all the services that the people of Northern Ireland depend on. I repeat that the Budget I am presenting today has been agreed by the Executive Committee and is in line with the Executive Committee’s Programme for Government. I am not calling it my Budget. That and the whiskey are the significant differences between our budgetary presentation and what happens elsewhere.
As regards further years, we will be providing the figures for the second and third years of the spending review period in December, when we bring forward the revised Budget. We are tabling this as a draft Budget for next year. The Programme for Government looks not only at our aims for next year but also at some precepts for how we will approach things beyond that. However, it would have been out of turn to present indicative allocations for years two and three at this stage. We are still open to revision on year one. When the revised Budget is presented in December, indicative figures will be there for years two and three.
As for "North/Southery", let us remember that these North/South bodies relate to services that people use and need. Do not make the mistake of thinking that there are no services related to these. We do have more Departments than we had before, but those Departments are able to deal with, meet with and respond to their respective policy commitments in a way that was not the case with the six old Departments. The organisation of those Departments was somewhat incongruous.
I am not aware of any proposal from a departmental Committee that a Department should be done away with, that it performs a superfluous function. Members probably feel more capable of contributing to the improvement and development of the Departments’ work under the present distribution of responsibilities than they would have under the previous structure that had six Departments.

Dr Dara O'Hagan: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. I welcome the new children’s fund as a positive step forward. Can the Minister assure Members that this fund will address the deficit accrued in the Western Board area, caused by a lack of funding under the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 and ‘Children Matter’? Will the additional resources for improved public transport include free transport for senior citizens, putting the North of Ireland on a par with the South? Go raibh maith agat.

Mr Mark Durkan: The children’s fund is an Executive programme fund, and its terms of reference, scope and criteria will be subject to development in detail. We wanted to embrace the scope of the Chancellor’s children’s fund and go further by relating it to the work of several Departments. Dr O’Hagan mentioned the pressure on some of the child services in the Western Board. There is an increased allocation of £3·5 million for the child services within the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety’s budget. We should focus on this budget allocation, rather than on the children’s fund. The children’s fund is designed to assist Departments to improve their work for children and to improve the work they do together or, to be more honest, that they do not do together at this stage.
The Member will be aware that the Minister for Regional Development’s proposals on public transport have been discussed. The Minister, and certainly the Executive, should look carefully and sympathetically at proposals for any service or assistance to our senior citizens.

Mr Danny Kennedy: I give a broad welcome to the announcement of additional funding for education contained in the statement. I also welcome the consolidation of Gordon Brown’s announcement in March of additional money for schools, and I want an assurance that it will, as in the rest of the United Kingdom, go straight into the classrooms. There will be broad agreement on this in the Education Committee, and we look forward to scrutinising the overall figures when they are presented to us.
I refer the Minister, in particular, to Gordon Brown’s announcement of last July on additional school funding. Can he confirm that this additional funding was taken into account in his announcement this morning and that the moneys will be channelled to the classroom rather than used for administration costs?

Mr Mark Durkan: I am glad that the Member welcomes the continuation into next year of this one-off funding to schools, with an increase of £20 million. I am also aware of the Minister of Education’s commitment to improving school budgets. It will be for him to announce in due course how this money will be used, and no doubt there will be full consultation with the Education Committee in that regard.
The Chancellor’s announcement in July included details of other moneys, and if Members were to look at the Barnett consequentials for Northern Ireland that will follow on from that announcement, they would see that these budget proposals are giving the Department of Education more money than it would have been given and that any of the extra money coming to Northern Ireland as a result of the Chancellor’s announcement — and, indeed, more — will be going to the Department of Education.

Mr Eugene McMenamin: I would like to congratulate the Minister on his statement. It has been suggested that other Chancellors drink whiskey, but could it be the Minister is drinking Irish dew? Can he tell us what amount of money is being allocated to address the disadvantage that travellers are under?

Mr Mark Durkan: To answer the first part of MrMcMenamin’s question, this is pure water. In fact, there is none left.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Is it holy water?

Mr Mark Durkan: It is not holy water, unless you want to do something about it, Dr Paisley, in the spirit of evolution that we were talking about earlier.
As I indicated in the Budget statement, the Executive Committee considered the possibility of allocating moneys to travellers from the Executive programme funds, but, given the priority that we attach to dealing with these issues, we decided to advance a direct allocation through the Department for Social Development for the pilot scheme arising from work on the new accommodation policy for travellers. A total of £2·2million will go to that scheme in the first year.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: I too would like to congratulate the Minister on his presentation. I am pleased that he does not have a drink problem, and I understand that that water will not help him to work an economic miracle here today.
I would like him to comment on his comprehensive statement, for there are some gaps. Other Members have drawn attention to this, but is it significant that we have seen the price tag without seeing the entire commodity that we are being asked to buy — the Government’s programme? Could it be that the Executive is not working as smoothly as he has suggested to the House? Are there still problems, and is the fact that we have got this back to front today an indication of those problems?
Can the Minister assure the House that all the policies he has presented have been rural proofed and that due regard has been paid to the farming community? Can he assure us that, as stated in paragraph nine, he will argue for a fairer allocation of funding to Northern Ireland? If he is suggesting that Northern Ireland is being short changed, I put it to him that he has a duty to ask for our full allocation. What will he be doing about that issue?
I also urge him to ensure that the social inclusion fund, which he mentions in paragraph 13, is proportionately distributed to the two communities in Northern Ireland.
Will he tell us the total to be allocated to the beef quality scheme, mentioned in paragraph 15? Finally, can he confirm that his Executive programme fund, mentioned in paragraph 17, is, in fact, a war chest amounting to some £300million over a two-year period? Does he agree that he should allocate this money immediately it becomes available to ensure that all Departments have their greatest needs met?

Mr Mark Durkan: I thank Mr Paisley for those questions. He said that this is back to front. The Assembly is getting a draft Budget statement today. The Programme for Government will be available next week. The Assembly does not have to take any decisions today. We will be able to take this draft statement and, through the Committees, come to some Budget decisions in December, when I will present a further Budget statement after reflection by the Executive Committee. Nothing has been taken out of turn. All that work will continue in the context of people having the Programme for Government proposals available and being able to appraise them.
I have said that the Executive is well seized of the whole question of the Barnett formula and the sort of case we need to make there. It is not a case that is going to be made overnight. It is not just a matter of "Barnett-storming" the Treasury and expecting to get a result. There are a variety of issues involved, not least in relation to other interests elsewhere. It is not just a matter for myself as Minister of Finance. They have a representational function, on behalf of the Executive, in these institutions. The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister have already been active on this issue. They scored some early, albeit marginal, success in that regard in the allocation that we got from the Treasury in the spending review statement in July.
The precise detail of the Executive programme funds has to be developed by the Executive Committee, not least in light of the comments that might come from the Assembly and the Committees. I made clear in my statement that the management of those funds and the allocations under them will have particular regard to the priorities identified in the Executive’s Programme for Government. They are, after all, Executive programme funds. They will also have full regard to our equality and targeting social need commitments. That applies to all the funds, not just to the social inclusion or community regeneration fund.
It is certainly not a war chest. It starts modestly this year, with just £16 million. We need to start to drive in a wedge that makes a difference between the patterns we have inherited and the priorities that we want to pursue for the future. The Executive programme funds are a key tool in that regard.
It would not be appropriate to allocate all these things in advance. We want these funds to work in ways that improve the sort of strategic interventions that are made, not just by individual Departments but by various Departments working together. It would be wrong to fix a particular timetable for making decisions on those funds if by pursuing that timetable we were to work against ensuring best use.

Mr Sean Neeson: Does the Minister accept that economic development and job creation are vital in ensuring stability in this society? Can he assure me that the budget for economic development will not be the soft touch that it has been in the past? Can he tell me whether the main recommendations of ‘Strategy 2010’ were considered by the Executive, particularly the proposal to create a single development agency? Does he agree that one of the major incentives for inward investment is tax concessions? The Assembly is greatly disadvantaged by not having tax-varying powers.

Mr Mark Durkan: The Executive recognises the importance of economic development for the whole community. While the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment has a strong primary role in economic development, many other Departments make a direct contribution to economic development in different ways. The Budget, and the Programme for Government when it is produced, will want to promote that strongly.
The funds allocated in the Executive programme for new directions and for infrastructure show our strong commitment to economic development. We will not treat any budget line as a soft touch. In my statement I explained why some of the relative increases for the Department of Trade and Investment do not appear to match the increases elsewhere. That is to do with the rundown of European funding.
12.00

Mr Speaker: I must ask the Minister to draw his remarks to a close.

Mr Mark Durkan: The relevant Minister continues to work on the review of agencies and structures, and such issues would be better reflected in the Programme for Government than in the Budget.

Mr Speaker: A substantial number of Members wanted to ask questions, but the time is up. In the case of a substantial presentation such as the Budget, that is a matter of particular regret. There will, of course, be further opportunities, but perhaps we should consider the amount of time allocated.

Mr Derek Hussey: Mr Speaker, can you confirm that the appropriate Assembly body and its officials are considering curtailment of the Hallowe’en recess and delay of the Christmas recess to allow for proper scrutiny of the Budget?

Mr Speaker: That is not a point of order, as the Member knows.

Mr Derek Hussey: It is an important point.

Mr Speaker: It may be important, but it is not a point of order.
I propose to suspend the sitting now and resume at 1.30 pm. Were we to resume the Consideration Stage of the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill right away we would have to interrupt it in less than half an hour for lunch. That would be fair neither to Members who wish to discuss the Bill nor to the Minister.
The sitting was suspended at 12.03 pm.
On resuming (Madam Deputy Speaker [Ms Morrice] in the Chair) —

Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill: Consideration Stage

Debate resumed.

Mr Peter Robinson: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can you help to remove some of the confusion surrounding our proceedings last night on this Bill? For those poor people in Northern Ireland who rely entirely on the Belfast ‘News Letter’ for their information, this morning’s copy had a heading "Non-payers’ driving ban thrown out". This indicates that the Assembly rejected a proposal by the Minister to impose driving bans on those who default on child support payments. Will you make it clear that when the House divided and the Ayes had it, that related to the Question that the clause stand part of the Bill, and not to any amendment?

Ms Jane Morrice: That is not a point of order. I do, however, accept that the reporting was incorrect and that the Member’s point is valid.
Clauses 17 to 52 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 53 (Loss of benefit for breach of community order)
Question proposed

Mr David Ford: Madam Deputy Speaker, I am glad that although Mr Robinson may have been correct on the votes last night, he was unable to railroad you on this clause.
When we had the Second Reading debate I asked, with regard to clause 53, a question about what would happen to a young lad who had been placed on probation because he had stolen the handbag of an old lady living down the street and who, after potentially losing his benefit for a breach of probation, went out and, fairly inevitably, stole a handbag from an old lady living in the next street. I hope that the Minister has had an opportunity to find the answer to that question, as he did not answer it in his winding-up speech last week. I, and others concerned with the criminal justice system, would like to hear the answer.
I quote from the National Association of Probation Officers (NAPO) in their response to the equivalent Bill as it was going through Westminster:
"It is extremely difficult to envisage that the withdrawal of benefits from those who breach orders will enhance public protection or reduce crime."
The Minister and his colleagues may not wish to take the word of a dangerous liberal like me on such matters, but NAPO and, indeed, the Northern Ireland Probation Board have equally — [Interruption]

Mr Peter Robinson: Right-wing organisations.

Ms Jane Morrice: Order.

Mr David Ford: NAPO and the Northern Ireland Probation Board have joined in the objections and have expressed the same concern that there is no suggestion that this clause, if enacted, would enhance public protection or reduce crime. In those circumstances it is incumbent upon those proposing that this clause be included to explain how that will happen. However, they have not endeavoured to explain how it will happen. In fairness, the Minister made it clear last week that he does not intend to introduce this particular power until he has seen the results of experiments in England and Wales — the so-called pilot schemes.
There is, of course, the question of the European Convention on Human Rights, which may or may not apply here.
If there is a requirement to have pilot schemes run in any part of the UK before this matter is to be introduced here, then it is incumbent upon the Minister to tell this House why on earth we should have it in our legislation at all. If it were shown that this particular form of punishment worked in England, Wales or Scotland, then we would obviously have to take the Minister’s view seriously. However, what he is telling us is that a measure which is so doubtful in value that the Westminster Government are piloting it but do not propose to introduce it on a widespread basis is to stand as part of our legislation. Even by his own definition yesterday it is not a question of parity. He is saying that we will have it floating around but we will not implement it. What is the point of introducing this group of clauses, starting with clause 53? It is an extremely dubious measure. The professionals have expressed doubts about it.
It is, to some extent, the other side of the coin of what we debated last night. Last night we debated introducing penalties covering an unrelated aspect of criminal justice into social security legislation. Now we are debating introducing penalties involving social security into a part of the criminal justice scheme. There is no evidence that there will be any likelihood of its working. This is admitted by the Minister. It was also admitted by the Westminster Government when this was introduced across the water. There is every likelihood that it will add to the problems. It will create further difficulties and will add to the burden of petty crime from which ordinary citizens suffer.
The various DUP Ministers put in a great deal of effort when they made their winding-up speeches yesterday. We had the real Minister, the previous Minister, the would-be-still-a Minister, the perhaps-would- be-the-next Minister. They all had a fair go at me.
I am happy to express my opposition to this point. Mr Robinson clearly thinks he is still a Minister who can denigrate the rest of us. Rather than denigrate me, let him justify this clause and explain how anyone in Northern Ireland will benefit when another old lady has her handbag pinched. By the Minister’s own admission, this clause has not yet been proved to be workable. Let it be brought into our legislation only when there is clear proof from across the water that it is workable, beneficial and of help to our citizens rather than a hindrance.

Ms Patricia Lewsley: I oppose the clause. This Bill has been debated over the last few weeks, and nobody in this Chamber disagrees that stronger deterrents are needed against people who do not abide by the sanctions imposed on them. However, at yesterday’s sitting, Members from the other side of the House repeatedly emphasised the issue of hardship to children. This clause can only create such hardship, seeking to impose, as it does, a loss of benefits on those who breach a community service order.
Mr Ford referred to the young man who steals a handbag from the lady next door and who steals one from the lady in the next street the following week. The case is not so simple. Not only would the benefits claimant be penalised, but the claimant’s partner and children would be affected the most. While £12 per week may not seem a great deal to many Members, such a sum means much more to the many benefits claimants who are already in a poverty trap.
Yesterday’s debate surrounded the removal of driving licences — perhaps it would be better if, in these cases, driving licences and not benefits were taken away.

Prof Monica McWilliams: The overlap between clause 16 and clause 53 is interesting. One concerns a civil order which has implications for criminal justice, while today we have criminal justice legislation with implications for a piece of social legislation. Perhaps, since we have a devolved Administration, an interdepartmental Committee could examine such Bills in their entirety. They would not then have to be passed from the Northern Ireland Assembly to the Northern Ireland Office, which has responsibility for the probation service and the courts.
I would like to have a report from such a scrutiny Committee on the implications and costs of such a policy change. I am very concerned about the costs involved. If the Minister can not reveal the setting up and administrative costs that this will entail today, can he inform me in writing?
I am also extremely concerned that this policy will increase the likelihood of homelessness and destitution. The clause does not suggest that all benefits should be withdrawn. It allows for this to happen, but it also allows for a reduction of benefits.
I thank the Minister for clarifying the implications for dependants. He has reassured me that dependants will be protected and that it is the individual offender who will be penalised. Nonetheless, I am sure that there will be indirect implications for an offender’s family and the community.
Can the Minister clarify the situation on pilot schemes? There was a great deal of confusion on this issue yesterday. In response to my question the Minister said that he was opposed to a pilot scheme in Northern Ireland to introduce the abolition of the driving licence as a penalty for people who do not pay child support.
The point needs to be made again. I asked him how we can know if it will work, and clearly, without having it piloted, the answer is that we do not know, despite the fact that many Members got on their feet to say that it would be a great advance on what we currently have. We do not know that either. This clause suggests that it will not be introduced in Northern Ireland until it is piloted in seven regions of England and Wales. The Assembly heard last week that it needs empowering legislation to introduce this measure. If that is the case, we will not be introducing it in Northern Ireland. Why, then, do we need it in the Bill?
If this power is only to be piloted in England and Wales, let the empowering legislation exist in England and Wales. We do not need it in Northern Ireland. It is clear that we could delete this clause without having to listen endlessly to how terrible it would be for Northern Ireland if we broke parity. Let me remind the House that this is not the first time that exceptions have been made for Northern Ireland. For many years the probation service has operated differently in Northern Ireland because of the circumstances here. I have no doubt that it was extremely alarmed about the information it was expected to provide about offenders’ behaviour when the Department was researching the next clause. One begins to question standards of confidentiality and the ethics of departmental responsibility. If a Department can simply ask for such information to be passed on to it, there are privacy implications under the Human Rights Act.
I sincerely hope that this measure will not be introduced, and I am opposing its introduction at this stage. And if, at the conclusion of the pilot schemes in England and Wales, it is decided that the measure should be extended to Northern Ireland, the probation service will be extremely concerned.

Mr David Ervine: There is a touch of déjà vu about this, although maybe it will be a bit different — perhaps the Ulster Unionists will speak today. Yesterday the largest party in the Assembly, representing the interests of the electoral majority, sat silent throughout the process. Of course, the Democratic Unionist Party is somewhat trapped. Knowing some of its members, I am sure they are rather uncomfortable with this legislation. Nevertheless, it is on the agenda, and they have to defend their Minister, who begins to make MargaretThatcher look like a shrinking violet: "Why not just cut out the middle man and do these people in? Bread and water. Nothing is bad enough."
Yesterday we debated and brought in draconian measures without realising their implications and the consequences that lie ahead of us. My colleague DavidFord gave the example of someone in economic difficulty who quite wrongly decides that the way out is through crime and then finds himself on a community service order with his benefit stopped. Would that person go on to commit less or more crime? The answer to that should be fairly clear. Circumstance does not make it right, but it is logical for that individual. Many of these people, the underclass in some respects, have little sense of association. They are alienated, disaffected and, indeed, very apathetic about how society functions for them.
We confirm them as victims in their own minds by treating them harshly, as this legislation shows. I can see absolutely no merit in further punitive action against people in this situation. While they do wrong and society has the right to deal with them, it is nevertheless ludicrous to heap further financial burdens on them. This can only exacerbate the potential for further criminal activity.
It is absolutely ludicrous. It has been thrown in supposedly to give us options, and the Minister may tell us later, as he told us yesterday, that it will only be done as a last resort. He does not have the right to say that. This legislation will not be interpreted by the Minister. It will be interpreted by a judge in a court of law. It is not said in this legislation, or in the legislation we dealt with yesterday, that it is only to be used as a last resort. We are being told, in a political, whitewashing way, that it will be all right, that it will not affect many people and that when a judge makes such a determination, he will only do so as a last resort. We will not make the determination. When the legislation is passed and is dealt with by a court of law, only the judge will determine whether to use this sanction as a first option, a second option, a third option or a last option. The language of the legislation is not tight enough.
My Colleague Monica McWilliams asked why we need to pass this legislation when it is about to be tested. We are being railroaded, having it stuffed down our throats. For two days in a row we Assembly Members are about to put our names to bad law. If we are here only to rubber-stamp the authority of the four large parties or, as happened yesterday, two of the large parties, maybe we are wasting our time. Our job is to scrutinise and to challenge what we hear from the Minister, and he is about to say in response that this is about the real victims.
We heard yesterday that we did not care about the children because we challenged aspects of the Child Support Bill. Of course we care about children. Of course we care about the victims of those who are on community service orders. Moral piety is unreasonable when it comes from the Minister to the Members of this House, and I caution the Minister that it is not wise to go down that track. We all care. We all have constituents who suffer — those we discussed yesterday and the victims of those who end up with community service orders. Remember that people with community service orders are alienated, disaffected and apathetic. Rather than the simple, punitive action of this legislation, perhaps we should be offering more ways of reducing their feelings of alienation and disaffection and giving them some sense of belonging in society. I oppose this — and I have more opposition in mind for later on.
The issues of parity that the Democratic Unionist Party is so determined to retain do not cross all boundaries, and there is no greater à la carte United Kingdom party than the party to whom the Minister gives his allegiance. We hear its members parrot "parity", and there will be times when we will remind them of what they have said about parity, and those times may not be long in coming. I reaffirm our opposition and say clearly that this is a tragedy. There are members of the Democratic Unionist Party and the Ulster Unionist Party who, if they were not expected to support the Government that they are part of, would be opposing this legislation.

Prof Monica McWilliams: On the issue of parity — and the DUP might care to look back over its records on the matter of parity on this and other pieces of legislation — one can not touch social security. That would have dire consequences for the people of Northern Ireland, for we get more out than we pay in.
Does the Member remember how the DUP complained when the exceptional fuel payment for Northern Ireland was removed, under the provisions of social security legislation? Its reasoning was that the income provided under social security provisions — supplementary benefit, as it was called then — did not go as far as it would have done elsewhere in the United Kingdom because we had exceptional fuel prices. Therefore it was seen to be right that the Government should pay extra to people in Northern Ireland, taking into account what they were paying out. When that was abolished, the DUP, and indeed other Members, said that it was not fair to the people of Northern Ireland. That was all about social security legislation.

Ms Michelle Gildernew: Go raibh maith agat a Cheann Comhaírle. I am not going to repeat what other Members have said, but I will say that I also remember Members on the Benches opposite talking very recently about fuel prices. They spoke of the need for special arrangements, given the price of diesel and petrol in the Twenty-six Counties. They were looking for measures to alleviate that problem. Parity does not always come into the equation.
Do the Members opposite really look at legislation and take a view about whether it is good, bad or indifferent, or do they just go along with it because it has been made in Westminster? If a Bill said that it was OK to put your hand in the fire, would the DUP and UUP be queuing up to do that as well?
I am also opposed to aspects of the Bill that we have discussed yesterday and today. I do not see any merit in stopping people’s benefits. Contrary to what has been said, the Bill will impact greatly on the families who suffer most. We cannot support the Bill for that reason. Go raibh maith agat.

Mr Sammy Wilson: I want to take up a couple of the points about the stance of the DUP and the Minister on this clause. The parity issue came up yesterday as well, and I thought that my Colleague Mr Peter Robinson explained the whole question of parity, and our stance on it, very clearly. We seek parity when it is to the benefit of the people of Northern Ireland. Where we can tailor legislation to fit the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland, or improve on legislation for the people of Northern Ireland, we are quite happy to consider something different. That position has been made very clear, and to simply say that if we want parity in that, we must have parity on everything is nonsensical. Through a local regional Administration we are seeking the ability to tailor things to the needs of the people of Northern Ireland. Maybe I have not explained this as eloquently as my Colleague did yesterday, but I hope that I have reinforced the point.
In certain circles Mr Ervine is known as "the Bishop Eames of the paramilitaries". When I listen to his moralising I feel that description is justified.

Mr David Ervine: You do not genuflect very much.

Mr Sammy Wilson: I do not intend to genuflect at all. Mr Ervine said that we should remember that we are dealing with disaffected people who feel that society has excluded them and that they are on the margins of society.
I wonder whether he gives the same lectures to the people he eulogised at his party conference on Saturday. He also asked why the Minister did not just cut out the middlemen and hang them all.

Mr David Ervine: The Member should not believe all that he reads in the papers; he was not at the party conference. The least said, soonest mended. It is somewhat unfair to have a wallop in this way.

Mr Sammy Wilson: Here is another quote. [Interruption] I am only quoting Mr Ervine’s own words:
"Why doesn’t the Minister just cut out the middlemen and hang them?"
Or did you say "put them in prison"? I cannot remember.

Ms Jane Morrice: Order. The Member will address his remarks through the Chair.

Mr Sammy Wilson: I am sorry. Perhaps you can inform me whether it was "hang them" or "put them in prison".
Mr Ervine has spoken eloquently about these disaffected people. However, there are people in east and north Belfast, and other parts of Northern Ireland, who go out, on a nightly basis, and drag these disaffected youngsters up an entry and beat the daylights out of them. I wonder if he gives them the same lectures about treating disaffected young people in a proper manner.
It is easy to stand in the Assembly and talk about how we should treat carefully these people on the margins of society, but the middleman is very often cut out on a nightly basis by people who proclaim themselves to be judge, jury and executioner for those youngsters who are involved in anti-social behaviour.

Mr David Ervine: I concur absolutely with the Member about the treatment that is dished out by people who cut out the middleman, as he has described it. It is shameful, it is wrong, and it is immoral. In answer to his question, yes, I do tell those with whom I have conversations exactly that, and I will continue to do so.
It might be worth the Member’s while to give some consideration to — or perhaps we might ask the Minister whether he can tell us — the ages of the people who usually receive community service orders.

Mr Sammy Wilson: I do not believe that age is an important point. The important point is that the cutting-out of the middleman is a frequent occurrence in our society. Whether Mr Ervine tells us that he condemns that and that it is morally wrong, we have been given a lecture today by someone who, to his credit, does not pretend that there is no association between himself and those who carry out those attacks.
The problem of breaches of community service orders comes when someone has failed, without reasonable excuse, to comply with the conditions of the order. Those people who have been placed on a community service order are usually placed there because they have offended against society.
It is fine for the likes of Mr Ford, and the other ‘Guardian’ readers in the House, to talk about the rights of those people. However, some people have to live with the consequences of the actions of others who have no regard for society, no regard for the elderly in society and no regard for people’s property in society. It is not easy to see people placed on community service orders and then for a minority of them to snub their noses — most do not — at society again and say that they are not going to comply.
It offends the sensitivities of ordinary decent people in society, who are their victims, to see them walk away without further punishment. It might be OK for the liberal classes, who can escape to their middle-class suburbs away from the desert of the inner city. However, I guarantee that if you had to live with some of the elderly people in the inner city areas like the Newtownards Road and the Ravenhill Road who, day and daily, have to put up with that, you would not be concentrating on the rights of those who breach the orders. You would be concentrating on how you could protect those who are affected by their behaviour.

Mr David Ford: I am not sure if Mr Wilson was in the Chamber when we started this debate — I have a feeling that he was not. I plead guilty to reading ‘The Guardian’. I feel no particular shame for that, so I am guilty on that charge.
On the specific issue of whose rights we are talking about, had the Member been in his place he would have heard that I was specifically talking about the suffering that was inflicted on the old lady in the next street who also had her handbag stolen. I was not pleading for the rights of the offenders. I was talking about the effects on society and, specifically, the elderly victims. If the Member is going to attack what I said, it would be pleasant if he had been here to listen, rather than make an assumption about what I ought to have said.

Mr Sammy Wilson: I am glad that I have at least roused one of the "Guardianistas" to defend himself.
I am talking about the rights of the people who are the victims. It does not matter what walk of life you come from, whether it is children in the home, youngsters in the school or criminals in society. The one thing you can be sure of is that if there is no deterrent or sanction then they will feel free to go and behave as they wish. The threat of the withdrawal of benefit may not have the effect of influencing all on community orders, but it will have a deterring effect on the vast majority. The majority will comply with the orders, take their punishment and repay society through the order that has been placed on them by the court.
It is significant that many of the parties in support of the agreement are now lined up against all of the sanctions imposed in this Bill. Their record is that they did not want any sanctions imposed on anyone. Terrorists were to be rewarded in a plethora of ways. Now we find that people who do not comply with community orders are not to have sanctions imposed. It is a whole ethos of reward, without making people face up to their responsibilities. That is not the kind of breach of parity that we should be aiming for. That leaves us with a poorer society and leaves the vulnerable and victims in society feeling even sorer when they see the perpetrators of wrongdoing being allowed off scot-free.

Mr Maurice Morrow: With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will speak on clauses 53 to 57 together, as they are interdependent.

Prof Monica McWilliams: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As Members only spoke to clause 53, they would like the opportunity to speak to other clauses before the Minister responds.

Ms Jane Morrice: Members will have the opportunity to speak to each clause and amendment as we go through the Bill.

Prof Monica McWilliams: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. If that is the case, perhaps the Minister would be wise to respond just on clause 53 at this stage. Will he return to the other clauses after we have spoken?

Ms Jane Morrice: The Minister will respond on clauses as Members raise issues about them, following this statement.

Mr Maurice Morrow: It was always my intention to respond to the other clauses as Members raise matters about them.
As happened yesterday — and as has happened again today — some Members have talked about things that they feel are in the Bill. I do not see them in the Bill. Members have, on some occasions, let their imaginations run away with them.
May I say what the Bill does not do? It does not propose to hang anybody. I want to make that very clear. I hope that this assurance will help everybody — and particularly Mr Ervine — to relax a little more. No one will be hanged as a result of this Bill. These clauses will allow payments of certain social security benefits or training allowances to be reduced or withdrawn when a recipient fails to meet the terms of a probation order, a community service order, or a combination order.
I believe strongly that a person’s right to support from the state depends on his meeting his responsibilities to society. This principle is fundamental to the reform of welfare, which is about improving state support through the New Deal for young people, working families’ tax credit, and giving more help to lone parents and disabled people who want to work.
In exchange for that, it is important that those on benefits do what they can to help themselves. There is a link between community sentences and benefits. Community penalties involve an element of discipline: attending interviews with probation officers, participating in programmes designed to stop re-offending, or doing unpaid work for the community. This experience reinforces skills often needed in a working environment.

Prof Monica McWilliams: I would like clarification. This clause refers to income support, jobseeker’s allowance and training allowances. Those are the only measures that the clause speaks to, and yet the Minister has introduced the working family tax credit. Will this clause also be extended to working families’ tax credit?

Mr Maurice Morrow: The answer is "No". I am sure the Member will recall that I did say that I was dealing with the clauses together. I will respond to individual points made by Members.
It is important to ensure that offenders receiving benefits complete their sentences. That will enable them to draw a line under their offending and move on to make a full contribution to society. The bottom line is that if an offender is not willing to meet the terms of a probation order, a community service order, or a combination order, he cannot expect the rest of society — the decent, hard-working men and women in the street or the old-age pensioners about whom we expressed such concern in a recent debate — to carry on supporting him while he laughs up his sleeve at them.
Mr Ford expressed considerable concern about the old lady who loses her handbag. Under existing provisions, social security benefits remain in payment even though offenders thumb their noses at their responsibilities to society. It cannot be right that a person who fails to meet his wider responsibilities to society still receives the same benefit from the state as someone who complies in full.
Just stop and think about this for a moment. This à la carte approach is not acceptable. It is not acceptable by anybody’s standards.
The Department of Social Security has proposed piloting the corresponding provisions of the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000 in a small number of areas in England and Wales. This will establish the detailed procedures necessary. For these pilot studies the period of benefit withdrawal or reduction will be set at four weeks. A sanction will apply to those people living in the designated areas who are aged between 18 and 59 and who are receiving income support, jobseeker’s allowance or certain training allowances. The results of these exercises will be fully evaluated and will inform decisions about the national roll-out of the scheme in Great Britain. I can categorically assure the House that the Northern Ireland provisions will not be implemented unless and until full implementation takes places in Great Britain.
While the benefit sanctions are aimed to impress on the offender the implications of his actions, they are not meant to leave anybody destitute. Benefits for dependants will not be sanctioned. I repeat: benefits for dependants will not be sanctioned. Hardship payments will be made available, subject to individual circumstances. This mirrors the system that currently applies to cases where employment sanctions have been imposed. I strongly recommend the Assembly to accept clauses 53 to 57.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClelland] in the Chair)

Mr David Ford: In his remarks about pilot schemes in Great Britain, the Minister has entirely repeated the point that was made earlier from this side of the House. So far he has no evidence that the scheme will work, yet he insists that this legislation must stand part of the Northern Ireland law book. Perhaps he could explain why this is so essential when he has no evidence — although his party Colleague MrWilson claimed to have some better knowledge than those who drafted this legislation across the water. Why is it so necessary to have powers which, as yet, are not justified in any part of the United Kingdom?

Mr Maurice Morrow: I have listened to the Member. I am putting his question at the bottom of the list, and I will answer it. However, I want to refer to something he mentioned earlier. MrFord stated that I had not given him a full answer yesterday in relation to the old lady who had her handbag snatched. I did say yesterday that if, when we had a look at Hansard, we felt that there was any matter that was not fully and properly addressed, then we would return to it and address it fully. I can give MrFord a categorical assurance that this will happen. If he still feels that the example of the old lady who lost her handbag was not properly addressed, then I assure him that it will be. A full answer will be given, right down to the very colour of the handbag that was stolen, if we can do that.
A number of points were raised today. Some were relevant and some were not of any relevance whatsoever. Some were pulled from the sky to cover Members’ inability to support this Bill in its totality. MrFord mentioned the position of a young offender who steals while on probation and has his benefit sanctioned.
I emphasise that reoffending is a matter for the courts. I hope that Mr Ford takes that point fully. In regard to the pilot scheme, which was touched upon by a Member, if the decision in Great Britain is not to proceed, then the provision in Northern Ireland will remain dormant. That is the case for all parity legislation. The provision must be there to allow it to be introduced if the decision is to proceed. That is what parity is all about.
Mr Ford also raised the point about the necessity of having the clause if it is not going to be used. If we delay the insertion of the clause into the legislation, then we will not be able to maintain parity. The clause must be a part of the original legislation to ensure that this is a piece of parity legislation.

Prof Monica McWilliams: The clause says, and the explanatory memorandum explains, that if, at any stage, the House wants a further extension of measures, this can be provided through regulations subject to the affirmative procedure. Why can that not be done in this instance? The clause states that something can be introduced at a later stage under further regulations, which will no doubt come before this House.

Mr Maurice Morrow: I thought I had made it clear. Some may think that I overemphasise the word "parity". I do not believe that it can be emphasised enough. A Member said earlier that responsibility comes with privilege. Are we going to allow some people to flout their responsibilities without accepting them? That is not the way forward, and that is why I am so emphatic that this Bill is implemented in Northern Ireland in its entirety.
Ms Lewsley spoke about protecting partners and dependants. Only the benefit of the offender will be sanctioned. I trust that clarifies the point for the Member.
Ms McWilliams made the point that the scheme will be piloted in England and Wales but not in Northern Ireland. That is true. However, it would be difficult to pilot the scheme in Northern Ireland because in comparison to England the population is too small. In fact, to achieve a proper sample, all of Northern Ireland would have to be piloted, and that is not logical.

Prof Monica McWilliams: In case the Minister has misunderstood me, let me explain that I was not suggesting that the scheme be piloted in Northern Ireland, whether there are adequate sample numbers or not. I am suggesting that this clause is not introduced in Northern Ireland. If it turns out to be the case — and I doubt it — that the conclusion of the pilot schemes is that such a punitive measure works, then we can revisit the issue and introduce an additional regulation. Why introduce the clause at this stage if the empowering legislation is only required for the pilot schemes in England and Wales? If the Minister returns to the House and informs us that the pilot schemes were a great success in England and Wales, then the Assembly will listen to that. However, at present he does not know the answer to the question. Why does he not accept the point that the best way forward is to accept the amendment, delete the clause and proceed with the rest of the Bill?

Mr Maurice Morrow: Ms McWilliams is right: I do not know. That is why I am putting it in. I want the legislation in its totality at this stage. She must accept that. Members can drop their heads and laugh if they so wish, but I ask the House to remember what this Bill is for. Some Members appear to have forgotten.

Mr David Ervine: It is about saving money.

Mr Maurice Morrow: No, it is about directing money to those who are entitled to it, and who deserve it. That is what it is about.
Regarding the point MonicaMcWilliams made about homelessness, housing benefit will not be sanctioned.
With regard to DavidErvine’s points, the court, and not the Department, would indicate that a person had breached the order. The offender could avoid benefit sanction by complying with the terms of the order. I hope that the Member understands that. At the time the order was being imposed, the court would explain to the offender what the consequences would be for someone on benefit. The Social Security Agency could sanction benefit only when the court had made such a determination. The court would have the primacy in such a case, and I recognise that some Members seem to have a difficulty with that, but they have not told us of a better arena in which to establish this. Where else could this be done?

Mr David Ervine: I thought that I had explained my point well. I accept that a judge would make the determination, but he would be making his determination on what he sees, and therefore we would lose control. It would be gone, and once this became part of law it would remain part of law. Not only would it remain part of law, but it would also become established practice in other areas of the justice system. A precedent would have been created, and benefit would be used as a punitive factor in many other areas. That is the biggest fear of the vast majority of Members who are against this.

Mr Maurice Morrow: I disagree emphatically. I do not know whether the Member is adopting this stance deliberately or unintentionally, but can he understand why such a person is in court? Does he fully understand that by the time a person reaches court, he has, on umpteen occasions, been given the opportunity to make good his default? That person is in court because he has spurned every opportunity and kicked them to the side. Only then will he find himself before a court. I cannot emphasise that point strongly enough, and I hope that the Member grasps that.
Mr Ervine then said that a sanction would not come into effect until the benefit office had been notified that a court had determined that a person had, without reasonable excuse, again failed to comply with the order. I have gone over that point on at least four occasions, and I fail to see why some Members still cannot get to grips with that particular point.
Another point raised by Mr Ervine was in relation to parity. We are dealing here only with social security. Others have tried to drag in other issues that are not for discussion today. There is a long-standing policy on parity, and, as Minister, I am bound by section87 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which requires me, in conjunction with the Secretary of State, to operate single systems of social security, pensions and child support. I do not have any option. We are, after all, part of the United Kingdom.
Mr Ervine then asked a series of questions in an interjection to Sammy Wilson. He mentioned community sentences orders, and he asked for some figures. I can give him figures now. Ninety-three per cent of people on such orders are male. In the under-18 age group, there are 15%, in the 18-to-25 age group 48%, and in the over-25 age group 37%. Seventy per cent of them are single, 7% married, 17% cohabiting, 4% widowed and 2% separated.
Mr Ervine also said that he could not see the merit in having these measures included and that we were merely about to rubber-stamp the law in Great Britain.
Mr Ervine says that he cares about children. Let him show that he cares. His actions will speak much louder than words on this particular issue. I would prefer that people did not tell me how to live, rather than they lived it themselves and then showed me. Mr Ervine may want to take that point on board.

Mr David Ervine: Unbelievable.

Mr Maurice Morrow: Maybe.
Monica McWilliams mentioned the working families’ tax credit. That benefit is administered by the Inland Revenue on a UK-wide basis and is not part of my responsibilities. I trust that that clarifies that point.
As for Mr Ford’s interjection, if this legislation is not on the statute book we will not be able to introduce it at the same time as it is introduced in the rest of the United Kingdom. Does anybody feel that there is any merit in our falling behind on benefit legislation? Does anybody think that that is to anybody’s advantage? I cannot see it.

Prof Monica McWilliams: Does the Minister accept my point? It is unfair that Members are made to feel that they have misunderstood the legislation. I assure the Minister that we understand it very clearly. We do not find it a laughing matter; we are treating it very seriously. The Minister felt that some Members were laughing at some of the things that were being said. Let the record show that the issue is being treated with an enormous amount of seriousness.
Some Members feel that this debate is going on longer than it should, but it should go on for as long as it takes for people to realise that what we put into legislation today stays on the statute book. If the measures are not to be introduced to Northern Ireland now, and since the statute allows them to be introduced at a later stage, would it not be sensible, given the concerns that have been raised, to leave it to a later time to introduce them, and then only if they are seen to work?

Mr Maurice Morrow: I do not recall saying that people were laughing. If I did say it, I was referring to Mr Ervine, who dropped his head in his hands and laughed. I did not say that other Members were laughing. I accept that the people who are putting forward points are sincere, but I hope that they in turn accept that I am emphatically in favour of the Bill and deserve the same courtesy.
Monica McWilliams questioned the need for the inclusion of this clause in the Bill. The clause must be in the Bill if we are to remain on parity with the rest of the United Kingdom. Following the piloting of the Bill in the rest of the United Kingdom, it may have to be changed. If Northern Ireland did not have the clause and it were not being changed in the rest of the United Kingdom we would have to come back to the Assembly and seek to have it included.

Prof Monica McWilliams: Hooray.

Mr Maurice Morrow: With due respect, that is where Ms McWilliams and I differ. I want the clause included because I feel that it should be there.

Mr David Ford: I am at a loss. The Minister tells us that we must have this clause in case the pilots are successful in Great Britain. Everybody knows that it would take an endless amount of time for regulations to be drawn up in Great Britain. Those regulations would then have to be brought across here to be introduced in a different form. There would be plenty of time for us to consider new primary legislation to deal with the matter while that process is going on, assuming that the evidence in Great Britain proves that this measure that the Minister is so keen on would be successful.

Mr Maurice Morrow: I have heard nothing to convince me that it should not be in. We will have to agree to differ. MsMcWilliams said that this provision must be in. I say to her that the provision must be in primary legislation — in a Bill. That is why we do not break parity, and why we do not leave things out at this stage. Some Members may feel that matters have not been adequately dealt with. I will read Hansard and, if I feel that that is the case, I undertake to get back to Members who have raised issues, and I will ensure that full and more definitive replies are given.
Question put 
The Assembly divided: Ayes 41; Noes 32.
Ayes
Ian Adamson, Fraser Agnew, Pauline Armitage, Billy Armstrong, Roy Beggs, Billy Bell, Tom Benson, Paul Berry, Esmond Birnie, Gregory Campbell, Mervyn Carrick, Joan Carson, Wilson Clyde, Robert Coulter, Ivan Davis, Nigel Dodds, Sam Foster, Oliver Gibson, William Hay, David Hilditch, Roger Hutchinson, Gardiner Kane, Danny Kennedy, James Leslie, David McClarty, William McCrea, Alan McFarland, Maurice Morrow, Ian Paisley Jnr, Ian R K Paisley, Edwin Poots, Ken Robinson, Mark Robinson, Peter Robinson, George Savage, Jim Shannon, Denis Watson, Peter Weir, Jim Wells, Jim Wilson, Sammy Wilson. [Tellers: Gardiner Kane and David McClarty]
Noes
Alex Attwood, Eileen Bell, P J Bradley, Joe Byrne, Seamus Close, John Dallat, Arthur Doherty, David Ervine, John Fee, David Ford, Tommy Gallagher, Michelle Gildernew, Joe Hendron, Billy Hutchinson, Patricia Lewsley, Alban Maginness, Alex Maskey, Kieran McCarthy, Alasdair McDonnell, Barry McElduff, Gerry McHugh, Mitchel McLaughlin, Eugene McMenamin, Pat McNamee, Monica McWilliams, Francie Molloy, Conor Murphy, Sean Neeson, Mary Nelis, Dara O’Hagan, Sue Ramsey, John Tierney. [Tellers: Billy Hutchinson and Kieran McCarthy]
Question accordingly agreed to.
Clause53 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 54 (Loss of joint-claim jobseeker’s allowance)
Question proposed

Prof Monica McWilliams: I thank the Minister for clarification on some of the points raised earlier, and also for the statistics that he introduced, which pointed to 70% of those claimants —

Mr Donovan McClelland: Order. If Members wish to leave the Chamber, they should do so quietly. Such noise is very discourteous when a Member is speaking.

Prof Monica McWilliams: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for restoring order.
This clause is speaking to the loss of the joint-claim jobseeker’s allowance. I think it needs some explanation. I can understand, since we have now voted for this sanction to be introduced, why it is so important to make sure that partners and dependants do not suffer as a consequence. Although we will be returning to this at the Further Consideration Stage, particularly in relation to piloting, I would like further clarification on the hardship payments which the Minister spoke of earlier. Is there not a contradiction, if it is the case, in a jobseeker’s allowance being partially or totally withdrawn for a time and a hardship payment being introduced as a consequence? I would like the Minister to explain why the funding is taken off the individual in the first place if there is hardship. That is an extremely important point. I also note that in the initial stages this is to apply to couples aged 18 to 24 and then will be further extended, but it does not say at what time it will be extended to older couples.
I would like to make the point that too much of this debate centred on the old lady with the handbag. Some of these individuals, albeit possibly a very small proportion, are over 50years of age, and there are many reasons why they are on community service orders. I would not like Members to think that all those on probation orders, or community service orders, and who breached those orders, were on them simply for mugging or burglary. There are many reasons why they have been diverted from custody and why those orders have been handed out. It is important to remember — and research supports this point — that women are often handed these orders for less offensive behaviour than men, and I am concerned that if an additional penalty were added to that the system would become more punitive.
The Minister is heavily dependent on departmental officials’ notes, but I want to remind him that we on this side of the House were clear that housing benefit was not to be affected. Irrespective of whether a person receives housing benefits, if his income is reduced — and this applies specifically if the jobseeker’s allowance is taken separately — there will obviously be occasions when he needs extra funding for domestic purposes and responsibilities. That is the point I was making. If money is taken away, that will clearly affect income, particularly if the couple are still living together or cohabiting. It will detract from the family. I know that the money will not come from the unoffending partner or, indeed, from the dependants, assuming that there is someone older in the house who is on a training allowance in his or her own right. In my house — and undoubtedly in the Minister’s as well — money is pooled. We talk about "household income". This system will take money away from couples, thus leaving them poorer, although that was probably not the intention.

Mr Jim Wells: I have been listening closely to this debate, and the point that the hon Member has failed to address is that a person who is in this position can solve this problem instantly by obeying the court order. He has the power to reinstate his social security payments. All he has to do is accept the court’s ruling and say "Yes. I have been given ample warning. I have committed an offence, and to ensure that my benefits continue, I will obey the court order." What is wrong with asking someone to take responsibility for his own actions?

Prof Monica McWilliams: I return to a similar point that was made yesterday. If we knew that that would happen, we would perhaps be in a better position to argue. The Member is making an assumption, but it is purely hypothetical. If the scheme is piloted we will get more information.

Mr Jim Wells: Will the Member give way?

Prof Monica McWilliams: I have already given way to the Member. If he wishes to put his name down to speak, he should by all means do so, but I will not give way unless he has an additional point to make. I want a thorough debate on this, for it is extremely important.
I say to MrJimWells that there are diversionary programmes, and the probation people are in favour of them and constantly seeking resources for them. It is up to the courts to put a person who has breached an order under surveillance. They say the programmes work. The only way to challenge a person’s behaviour is to get to the presenting problem, rather than the symptom. We ought to be introducing these programmes, but since criminal justice is a reserved matter, we cannot talk about this here, other than to make reference to them.
We do not know that this will work. It could not only be dysfunctional, but increase poverty among families, and it would not be the offender who suffers but other members of the family. Despite the fact that departmental officials, through the Minister, are constantly producing notes to say that this will not be the case, they do not know if that is true, because the programmes have not even been piloted.

Mr David Ford: I do not intend to repeat everything that Ms McWilliams has said, as there seems to be enough repetition in this debate. However, I want to emphasise one point she made. Suffering will indeed centre on the family if joint-claim jobseekers are penalised and eventually levied. The notes claim that the measure would impact initially on couples without children; I think the use of the word "initially" makes the long-term intentions quite clear.
Sammy Wilson mentioned that I live in a leafy suburb — though that is not the description I would use myself. In my past life, before committing the major crime, in DUP eyes, of going to work for the Alliance Party, I was a social worker. During those years I worked in some of the less leafy parts of Antrim, Newtownabbey and Carrickfergus. I know a little about how the people who are likely to be affected by this live and budget.
Some Members may suggest that families living on the breadline pool the money which comes in, categorise it under rent, dad, mum, first child, or second child and live their lives in watertight compartments with penalties inflicted solely on parents, as distinct from their children. This idea is straight from cloud-cuckoo-land. It is quite clear that when people live on minimum levels of support, such as benefits like income support, the money is all pooled, eventually going to the most pressing matter at any one time. Therefore it is evident that any such penalty will actually impact on children, as well as on the "innocent partner" in any couple, once this measure is introduced for families with children.
Rather than continuing to hector us, if he is to persist in pushing this clause the Minister must explain how it will impact solely on the guilty partner and not on the entire family.

Mr Maurice Morrow: Earlier, when I was addressing all the clauses, I undertook to respond honestly to the points raised by individual Members as we examined each clause.
Hardship payments will be made available subject to individual circumstances. This mirrors what currently happens when employment sanctions have been imposed. Some of the Members who spoke today see something wrong with that and feel that it should not be necessary. It is my opinion that we must account for all eventualities; that is why this system is in place.
Ms McWilliams may have felt earlier that some of us disparaged the analogy of the old lady with a handbag. Nothing could be further from the truth. She is also vulnerable, and that is the type of person whom we seek to protect. However, the analogy of the old lady with a handbag may have been drawn in emotive rather than in real terms.
Having been a councillor and public servant for some 27 years, I am quite aware of some of the nasty things that happen in society. Therefore, when I am in a position to do something about them, it behoves me to do it with all my might and go the extra mile. This Bill will go a long way towards addressing many of the things which have caused concern to me throughout those years and to many Members present also.
Ms McWilliams raised a point about clause 54 — it is needed to deal with the different rules relating to joint claims for jobseeker’s allowance. I hope that clarifies the position. Complaints were made about the fact that there has been repetition on this matter. I accept that that is the case, but any repetition that I made was necessary.
Let no Member, including those opposed to this legislation, be under any illusion about why we need it. Mr Wells interjected when Ms McWilliams was speaking and made this point very succinctly: those who are before the courts or are having their payments sanctioned are people who will not accept their responsibilities to children. If this constitutes repetition, I am happy to stand in the dock, but I am going to keep repeating the fact that we are trying to look after the children and to get money to them. Those opposed to these clauses should focus on this point as they go through the Lobbies. When they come out at the other side they should ask themselves "Did I do what was right and in the best interests of the children who are being deprived of what is rightly theirs?"
In relation to a point made by Monica McWilliams, extension to other benefits would be by statutory rule, a matter which would come before the departmental Committee and then the House. I hope that she accepts that point. I am not accusing her of misunderstanding the Bill. I am sure she understands every letter and every word of it, and my tone is not mocking, it is genuine. But if she is emphatic that the clause should be taken out, let it be understood that some of us are emphatic that it should be kept in, and we will make every effort to ensure that it is.
I have dealt with the matter of sanctions: the responsibility lies entirely with those whose benefits have been taken from them. It is in their hands to do something about it — the responsibility must not be shifted to anyone else.
A similar point raised earlier by Mr Ford was adequately dealt with. Should anything remain unclear, the print will be examined when it is published, and an undertaking is given that every person’s —

Mr David Ford: Will the Member give way?

Mr Maurice Morrow: I am finished now. Every person’s concerns will be fully addressed.

Mr David Ford: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. It was a ruling from the Chair that Members would be expected to give way. The Minister, who has just attempted to represent the way in which I spoke in this section of the debate, has misrepresented my position and has refused to accept an intervention. Is that in order, given the ruling that the Speaker made yesterday?

Mr Donovan McClelland: Mr Ford, you are quite correct. In those circumstances, the Member should have given way. I had to assume that the Minister was halfway through his concluding sentence. It was exceptionally difficult for me to interrupt him mid-sentence, and when he finished the sentence he sat down.

Mr David Ford: On a further point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. May I assume that it is in order for the Minister to denigrate the rest of us, so long as it is in the last sentence of his speech?

Mr Donovan McClelland: That is not the case, and that is not a point of order.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 54 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 55 (Information provision)
Question proposed

Mr David Ford: Since clauses 55, 56 and 57 are consequential on clauses 53 and 54, I do not propose to oppose them at this point, though I cannot speak for Ms McWilliams or Mr Ervine.

Prof Monica McWilliams: We must be very clear about the information to be provided by the offender under clause 55, especially as it is simply for benefit purposes.

Mr Maurice Morrow: It might be prudent to deal with Mr Ford’s comments. I find it strange to be accused of not giving way, and the allegation that I tried to stymie the debate is horrendous, given the number of times I did give way. Mr Ford might want to reflect on what he did or did not say.
Ms McWilliams’s point is valid and I shall take it seriously. I will take a closer look at that point and come back to her definitively.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 55 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 56 to 67 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 68 (Commencement and transitional provisions)
Amendment (No 1) proposed: 
" ( ) An order bringing in sections 16 or 53 to 57 will be subject to approval in draft." — [Mr Ford]

Mr David Ford: The position is quite clear — the Minister is certain of the rightness of his case. That being the case, it is reasonable to expect him to present in draft form the Order introducing the regulations relating to the clauses discussed earlier.
I would be interested to hear the views of the Ulster Unionist Party on these clauses. When the equivalent matter was discussed in the House of Commons, the Bill was opposed on Second Reading by Liberal Democrat, Scottish Nationalist and Plaid Cymru Members. Mr Beggs, the late Mr Forsythe, Rev Martin Smyth and Mr William Thompson also opposed it. In the circumstances, therefore, their Colleagues in this House will, I am sure, support such a reasonable and modest amendment.

Mr Maurice Morrow: The purpose of clause 68 is to allow the Department to make an Order or a series of Orders, bringing into operation the provisions of the Bill that do not come into operation on Royal Assent. This is found in every Act or Order in Council that does not come fully into operation on Royal Assent. It is most unusual for such an Order to be subject to any kind of control, either by the Assembly or by Parliament at Westminster.
The reason is that commencement Orders merely commence provisions already agreed by the Assembly. The appropriate time to debate the policy and any other issues is now.
Given the underpinning policy of parity, both in content and timing, there is no provision for any subordinate legislation dealing with social security, pensions or child support to be subject to approval by the Assembly before it comes into operation. This enables the designation of a single operative date for both Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in line with my obligations under section 87 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. This amendment seeks to allow those Members whose amendments were defeated earlier today a second bite at the cherry. This cannot be right. Once the House has agreed the policy and the provisions of the Bill, the will of the House should be accepted, and we should move on.
Furthermore, acceptance of the amendment would once again call the issue of parity into question. I have already spoken at length on the subject, and I will do no more than assure the House that my intention, when advocating parity, is not to diminish the powers of the Assembly, but simply to get the best possible deal for the people of Northern Ireland. I strongly urge the Assembly to reject this amendment.
Question put and negatived.
Clause 68 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 69 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedules 1 to 9 agreed to.
Long title agreed to.

Mr Donovan McClelland: The Consideration Stage having been completed, the Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

Fisheries (Amendment) Bill: Committee Stage (Period Extension)

Ms Mary Nelis: That, in accordance with Standing Order 31(4), the period referred to in Standing Order 31(2) be extended to Thursday 14December 2000 in relation to the Committee Stage of the Fisheries (Amendment) Bill (NIA 9/99).
The Culture, Arts and Leisure Committee is requesting an extension to the Committee Stage until 14 December, because we have not yet had an opportunity to take oral evidence on the Fisheries (Amendment) Bill. In addition, the Committee has almost completed taking evidence on its inland fisheries inquiry, which will help inform the Committee during its scrutiny of the Bill. As we all know, Committees will be very busy, for the next month or so, scrutinising the Programme for Government and the Budget proposals. Therefore the Culture, Arts and Leisure Committee requests this extension.
(Mr Speaker in the Chair)
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That, in accordance with Standing Order 31(4), the period referred to in Standing Order 31(2) be extended to Thursday 14December 2000 in relation to the Committee Stage of the Fisheries (Amendment) Bill (NIA 9/99).

Flags

Mr Fraser Agnew: That the report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Flags set up to consider the draft Regulations laid by the Secretary of State under the Flags (Northern Ireland) Order 2000 be submitted to the Secretary of State as a report of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
I had mixed feelings when I was nominated as Chairperson of this Committee, because, as a Unionist, I believe we have the right to fly the Union flag over Government buildings, and I had sympathy with those who were opposed to the Committee’s being set up. Nevertheless, the Secretary of State sought the Assembly’s opinion on the issue, so the Ad Hoc Committee was established and we were morally bound to review the matter and to produce a report.
At the outset, I felt that I was either mad or masochistic to have taken on the role of Chairperson. The cynics predicted that it would be impossible to produce a report, but we succeeded in our aims. As Committee Chairperson, it is my role to present this report to the Assembly and to move the motion.
The Committee was established on 11September this year to report back to the Assembly by 16 October on the Secretary of State’s draft Regulations for flags on Government buildings. We have defied the cynics and met the deadline — we were a day out, but that was not the Committee’s fault. This achievement should not be underestimated, given the diversity of opinion on this issue and the timescale in which we had to work.
The Committee comprised representatives from every party in the Assembly, except the United Kingdom Unionist Party and the Northern Ireland Unionist Party. Members will note from the report that neither party made a submission to the Committee, a contribution which would have been beneficial. Our first meeting took place on 19September, and we met in public session on a further five occasions.
We have an interesting transcript of one meeting during which it was suggested that a further meeting should take place "so long as it is held in the open." The transcript read "so long as it is held in the Europa", but we held it in the open in the Senate Chamber.
At our meeting on 25September it was decided that the Committee report would be based on a series of propositions, reflecting the different views of Members, with an indication of the level of support for each standpoint. Each party represented on the Committee made written submissions in which it set out its different views, and these submissions have formed the basis of the report which is before the Assembly today.
Members will note that, for their convenience and by way of a summary, the report includes details of the various submissions on the party views, in subsections on the "Status of the Union Flag", "Flags and the Belfast Agreement" and "Positions on the proposed Regulations under the Flags (NI) Order 2000". In order to gain insight into the relevant issues surrounding the matter of the flying of the flags — indeed, we wanted to get as wide a range as possible — the Committee sought to hear evidence from those best placed to clarify the matters contained in the draft Regulations. We issued invitations to the Secretary of State, Mr Peter Mandelson; the head of the Northern Ireland Civil Service, Mr Gerry Loughran; and the Chairperson of the Equality Commission, Mrs Joan Harbison. To our disappointment — although perhaps we should not have been surprised — the Secretary of State and the head of the Northern Ireland Civil Service were unable to attend.
Considering the importance of the subject to the Assembly, to the parties represented therein and to the electorate, and acknowledging that the Secretary of State was responsible for drafting the regulations and for allocating the timescale, it seems remiss that the Committee only heard evidence from the Equality Commission. It would have preferred to benefit from full and frank discussion with, and additional information and clarification from, all those who could have shed light on the various matters which arose.
The Committee heard the evidence of the Equality Commission on Thursday 5 October. We have included it in the report, along with three submissions from external organisations and individuals which were received in response to a press release by the Committee.
There are a few issues that I would like to draw to Members’ attention. These issues were of concern to all Members of the Committee. The first point relates to the very tight deadline that was set for the Committee’s work. By the time the membership of the Committee was agreed we had only three weeks to consider this difficult and divisive issue, to hear evidence and to produce a report. This timescale for this was totally inadequate, but thanks to the tremendous amount of time and effort given to the task by the staff of the Committee, I am able to present the report today. In future, we should ensure that a more realistic timescale is allocated, to enable a Committee of this kind to carry out the task it has been set.
My second point is to request that Ad Hoc Committees be given appropriate powers to call for persons and papers. Members of the Committee expressed disappointment that they were unable to hear evidence from the Secretary of State and the head of the Civil Service. For an Ad Hoc Committee to have this power, an amendment to Standing Orders would be required to meet the provision of section 44(6) of the NorthernIreland Act 1998. This is an issue that should be considered by the Committee on Procedures.
With the benefit of hindsight, the Committee agreed that in the event of a Member’s being unable to be present, a substitute should attend. Since the deadlines were extremely tight, and to avoid time wasting on briefing people again and again, each party was responsible for ensuring that deputies had a full working knowledge of what had gone before. At times this proved to be something of a problem, and it became increasingly clear that briefings had not taken place. In the interests of future Ad Hoc Committees, I would advise that this is not the best means of making progress.
I would like to thank the members of the Committee for their contributions and their patience and MrDavid Ford, who is absent, for his help as Deputy Chairperson. On one occasion he gave me some good, fatherly advice — though I hasten to add that he is certainly not my father.
As Members can appreciate, it has not been easy to reach this point. I want to thank the staff of the Committee for their considerable help in ensuring that we could present this report to the Assembly today.

Mr Speaker: Given the number of Members who wish to speak, I intend to restrict the length of each contribution to 10 minutes. This is not an incitement to use the full 10 minutes but a limit that must be imposed if we are to have the participation of as many Members as possible.

Mr Peter Weir: I am disappointed that we need to have this debate. We were told that this was a matter that would be sorted out, but it looks as if it is yet another matter which has slipped down the route of "constructive ambiguity".
I do welcome this report. At least we can get a fairly accurate picture of the views of the different parties. When scientists explore the great wastes of Siberia and other places they sometimes come across a body that has been frozen in time — a body which has been chiselled out from the neolithic ages. That recovered body bears a striking resemblance to a member of Sinn Féin. Its submissions show no recognition of anything that has happened in Northern Ireland over the last 80 years. Sinn Féin has failed to accept reality. Its submission is a green wish list. Its members look at the world as they would like it to be, not the way it actually is, and that outlook informs their attitude towards flags.
What is more disappointing in the evolution from neolithic man is that the other Nationalist parties do not appear to have evolved a great deal either. One notes with almost equal disappointment the submission of the SDLP, which, like Sinn Féin, is persistent in its rejection of the consent principle.
What is particularly disappointing is the submission of the Women’s Coalition, which seems to be donning the garb of Nationalism. Its conclusion is that perpetuating the status quo and flying one flag is not a long-term option. The Women’s Coalition does not accept the clear consent principle that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. It gives a range of other options — two flags, no flags, a new flag or some combination — but the one option it does not regard as a long-term option is to keep flying the Union Jack.
I welcome, however, the range of Unionist propositions that have been put forward — and some of the responses from the Alliance Party — ranging from the somewhat short PUP proposals to the very extensive proposals from the Ulster Unionist Party.
Many aspects of these draft Regulations should cause us grave concern, in particular 2(2). Stormont is specifically excluded from the list of Government buildings. The specific set of buildings does not include the headquarters of the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure, and there is no reference to any future buildings.
These buildings seem to be almost frozen in time. If, for example, another building becomes a headquarters building in the future, or if another Government building is built, that seems to be specifically excluded from these proposals. The Secretary of State has to take those matters into account if he is to make his proposed Regulations acceptable in any shape or form.
There is also concern over the list of notified days. The majority of people here simply want Northern Ireland to reflect the rest of the United Kingdom. There is also a desire and a need to reflect what has been common practice until now. The fact that days are being dropped from the list — for example, 12July — is to be deeply regretted. There needs to be an examination of that.
There are many issues to be covered. People will deal with them in the debate and I do not want to pre-empt them. I am gravely concerned that in regulation9 we have for the first time a prohibition on the Union Jack flying other than on the specified days. That is a very retrogressive step and deeply to be regretted. The proposals are flawed.
The propositions put to the Committee that seem to have widespread support, at least within the Unionist bloc, are to be commended. I was not a member of the Flags Committee, but I did observe a couple of its sessions. I have to express disappointment with the attitude of the SDLP, particularly in the latter session. They seemed to take the petulant attitude that because they did not get their way, they were not going to take part in the voting. That does not bode well for the future of acceptance in Northern Ireland.
We are left with deeply flawed Regulations. It says a great deal about the current state of the political process in Northern Ireland that if this is put forward as the final draft by the Secretary of State, it will be perceived by some in the media as a sort of victory for Unionism. For Unionism to be able to claim victory for getting a slightly restricted form of what it already had shows how little Unionism has got from the process of late.
We are not talking about any special privileges, nor about flaunting the flag in the disgraceful way that, at times, it has been flaunted in this Province. We are not talking about flags on every lamp-post. We are talking about an acknowledgement of the principle of consent, with the flag flying on proper Government buildings on proper designated days. That is not too much for this Assembly to commit itself to. I urge the SDLP, in particular, to cast aside their intransigent Nationalist baggage and support the principle of consent, recognise that they are part of the United Kingdom and start facing that reality by supporting this proposal. I hope the Secretary of State makes the appropriate changes to these Regulations to allow us to have a proper outworking of the principle of consent in Northern Ireland.

Mr John Dallat: Mr Weir has summed up the whole thing pretty well. Twice he called for victory for Unionists, and I am not sure I could repeat —

Mr Peter Weir: Will the Member give way?

Mr John Dallat: I am only on my feet. Give me a chance.

Mr Peter Weir: Before misquoting me, perhaps the Member could at least listen to what I say. I said that the media might portray this as a victory for Unionism but that I would not regard it as such. If the Member is going to quote me in the future, perhaps he will listen a little more carefully.

Mr John Dallat: I thank Mr Weir for that. In this important debate it is essential that we get things absolutely right. I am sure that when Members have listened to this debate they will understand better why the Ad Hoc Committee resorted to a popular TV programme for inspiration and began talking about "fifty-fifty", "phone a friend" and "ask the audience".
At least the Committee members were good-natured about the problem. They realised that there is a problem, and the Chairperson was very fair in his work.
Returning to the television programme, some people have made themselves millionaires. Some have made themselves millionaires out of flags too and have not answered a question. The sad reality is that others have died in the process, and that makes everyone poor.
In its submission the Ulster Unionist Party quotes from the Good Friday Agreement:
"Northern Ireland in its entirety remains part of the United Kingdom and shall not cease to be so without the consent of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland".
That having been supported by 71% of the population and agreed by all of the parties to that agreement, I would love to know why we need this debate about flags. Why are we back into the quagmire about flags and the division that they have caused in Northern Ireland for so long?
Surely we should be seizing the opportunity to lay the foundation stones of a new society that respects diversity and goes to extraordinary lengths to avoid division. Why are we putting ourselves in this quicksand which will do nothing to bind the building blocks of a new Northern Ireland where everyone is not only equal but feels comfortable with that equality? Flags have been used all too often to mark out territory, to make political statements and destroy relationships.
The Ulster Covenant, if I dare mention it, was signed on a table bedecked with a Union flag, and since then, I am afraid, politics in Northern Ireland have always been matched by the need for a flag. Even the election literature can not be sent through the post without a Union flag pattern on it. How is that supposed to encourage non-Unionists to respect that flag?

Mr Robert McCartney: rose.
I hope that Mr McCartney will have his chance to speak when I am finished.
Even those who exploit the flag show it disrespect. They nail it to telegraph poles and even carry it upside down in distress. How many times have you seen the flag flying upside down at a DUP rally?
Let us suppose that I was to give my allegiance to the Union flag. How could I be sure that I was in harmony with my Unionist friends? This year there have been more flags on display than at any time since the Coronation of King George VI, and few of them have been Union flags. On a rough count, and I am a total outsider, I would say that the Ulster flag is the most popular. That is good news for one manufacturer in Dublin who makes them for the tourist trade in Bangor and in Portrush.
The point that I am making is a simple one: there is no unity about flags — not even in the Unionist community. There is certainly no cross-community support for any flags. That being the case, it would be best if we selected only the materials that help to create a new respect and a new understanding between divided people. The issue of flags should, we believe, be left for another day, and perhaps at some time in the future we can agree on our flags. That is what is happening in the context of the European Union, so perhaps there is hope for the future — some time.
We are at a critical point in our journey of peace, and we need many signposts for the future. However, if we are to attach flags to those signposts, then we are likely to get lost. That is not in the interests of anyone — not now or in the foreseeable future. I firmly believe that we are on the right road, waved on by the vast majority of people who are clutching not flags but a burning desire never to repeat the mistakes of the past. Let us bedeck that road, not with the tattered remains of flags, but with the light of a new dawn that continues to point us in the direction of a new future where the divisions of the past are a bad memory.
Flags stained with the blood of our fellow citizens are part of that past left behind, and it is inappropriate that any flag should fly on any Government building at present. We shall be abstaining in this vote.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: The hard fact of the matter is that we should not have to discuss this. No Parliament in the world ever has to pass an Act to declare legality for the flying of its national flag. This debate is forced on the Assembly because the members of the perfect Executive were so loving, kind and tender one to the other that they failed to come to a decision on this matter. Those that trumpet loudly that they want devolution were prepared to go back to the Secretary of State to ask him to take powers from this House and from those who boasted of devolution. The House of Commons proposed that the Secretary of State should take back part of the powers already devolved in the so-called Good Friday Agreement. We had the British House of Commons going through a procedure of trying to legalise the flying of the national flag in this part of the United Kingdom.
Mr Dallat implied that the parties to the agreement agreed that we are part of the United Kingdom, but he then dished up a diet of tattered flags and talked about why we are having this debate. The fact is that the SDLP is opposed to the flying of the Union flag. If it had not been opposed, then the Unionists in partnership with it in the Executive could have passed this; the issue would have been all over and the flag would have been flying. It was SDLP opposition, and not opposition from the Sinn Féiners, that brought this about. The SDLP then lectures us about building blocks, tattered flags and the DUP flying the flag upside down. I am the only man that taught Europe how to fly the flag — the European Union was flying it upside down. Of course, I would not expect Mr Dallat to be even interested in how the flag was flown — he would be delighted it was flying upside down because he would hope that it meant that the Union was in distress. As long as the ordinary people of this land are in a majority, the Union will not be in distress, and they will not bow the knee to the policy of Mr Dallat and his party.
I note that he was very lenient on the Sinn Féiners because they use the Irish tricolour on their literature. He did not say anything about them. Perhaps he was trying to tell the House that it is in order to fly the tricolour and put it in election literature, but it is not in order to have the Union flag.

Mr Robert McCartney: Perhaps Mr Dallat will also recall, in relation to election literature put out by the SDLP, that literature with the tricolour on it was sent to predominantly Nationalist areas, and literature without it to predominantly Unionist areas.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Nothing would surprise me about the antics of Mr Dallat and his party.
The flag of the country should be flown, and nothing should keep it from being flown. If we believe that the majority of people want to have the Union, then the national flag should be flown. Mr Mandelson took this power back to himself. He then decided that he did not want the full responsibility, and he referred the matter to this House, knowing that this House will not come to an accommodation on it. There can be no accommodation as far as flying of the national flag is concerned — the flag is not for sale. It is not a matter of negotiation. The national flag flies, full stop. That is the attitude of the Southern Government, the Netherlands Government, the German Government and all the Governments of the European Union. However, the European Union has devised another flag with stars, which Mr Dallat, who is a student of stars, knows is a papal flag. They say that the European Union has a majority of papal states, so it had to have a papal flag. In fact, the nuncio from the Pope is the head of the ambassadors, because the EU is looked upon in Europe as a union of Roman Catholic states. But we have a flag — the flag of the United Kingdom — and it is the flag that should be flown on our property.
These Regulations are not about the flying of flags at all. They are about prohibiting the flying of the flag on the majority of the days of the year on "so-called" Government buildings — because they do not define those carefully. They make sure that they are not defined carefully so there will be many reasons for Sinn Féin Ministers not to put them up.
The Regulations say that on the majority of the days of the year, as far as Government buildings are concerned, the flag has not to fly. It will be illegal to fly the Union flag. It also says that on the Twelfth of July the flag has not to fly. But the revolution settlement, upon which this United Kingdom is built, politically, came about as a result of the Battle of the Boyne and the victory that was gained there. The revolution settlement — the Williamite revolution settlement — is the basis of our constitution. We need to remember that. Why should the flag not fly on the Twelfth of July?
Of course, they say it can now be flown on StPatrick’s Day. I have no objection to that. I believe Saint Patrick was a Christian and I believe he taught the Christian message. It was an English pope, the only English pope we ever had — Adrian IV — who sold Ireland to Henry II in order to destroy the Celtic Church and implant Romanism on this island.

Mr Speaker: Order. I was following the connection with the flying of the flag as far as the Williamite settlement. I have to confess that when the Member went back to St Patrick the connection with the flag began to become a little more tenuous.

Mr Peter Robinson: It is in the report.

Mr Speaker: I accept that it is in the report.

Mr Peter Robinson: Are we not allowed to speak to the report?

Mr Speaker: I am trying to draw the Member’s attention to the fact that he only has little over two minutes to speak, and it would be best for him, I would have thought, to stay most relevant to the motion.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: I know the time very well. I can read the clock. I do not need any help from you to tell me my time is nearly up, for you will bring the mallet down on me and that will be that. You were trying to tell me I was out of order but you became unstuck because it was mentioned in the report. I do not really want to fall out with you about St Patrick’s Day, but I am going to fall out with anyone who says the national flag can not fly on the national territory — and that is what this is all about.
I read this report with amazement. I did not see where the SDLP even voted for their own proposals. I do not understand. Now they are abstaining. I wish they would abstain from other things that war against the soul. But let me just say this to you today: the national flag will fly in this country. It is the wish of the vast majority of its people to remain within this Union. Long live the Union, and let the Union flag fly.

Mr Conor Murphy: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Any value the Committee’s report would have had was probably negated by the fact that there was a convoluted attempt to introduce some weighing mechanism that would have bypassed any vote this Assembly might have taken on any proposals coming from it. It was really only an exercise in people re-stating their position. It was nothing more than that.
We have to draw attention back to the Good Friday Agreement because the section dealing with rights, safeguards, and equality of opportunity contains a number of commitments from the British Government. These include promoting social inclusion, tackling the problems of a divided society, and particularly, sensitivity in the use of symbols and emblems for public purposes, especially in the new institutions, to ensure that they are used in a manner that promotes mutual respect rather than division.
Judging by those undertakings, it is obvious that Peter Mandelson’s draft Regulations are a deliberate contradiction of the commitments given during the Good Friday negotiations. However, playing fast and loose with British Government commitments is nothing new to the present Secretary of State.
The issue of flying flags on Government buildings was supposed to have been dealt with by the Executive. Only on the failure of the Executive to resolve the matter was the Secretary of State to intervene. I am not aware — but I could be corrected — of any statement from the Executive stating that it could not resolve the issue. The Secretary of State’s intervention on this issue is an act of political expediency designed to shore up the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party at the expense of all other participants in the process.
Mr Mandelson’s draft Regulations not only fly in the face of the agreement and section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, but they also contradict the fair employment code of practice, as outlined by a tribunal finding in 1995. This stated that employees do not have to tolerate reminders or suggestions that particular religious beliefs, or political opinions, have a special place in their workplace.
The Regulations, as proposed, will discriminate between employees who work in regional departmental offices and those who are based at departmental headquarters. The latter will be subjected to having to work in a building that displays the flag of the British state, regardless of their political opinions or affiliations, while the former will not.
One would have assumed that in the drafting of such Regulations, which are highly sensitive in terms of employment practice, the Secretary of State would have consulted the Equality Commission — the body set up to provide expertise and advice in these matters. For reasons best known to himself he did not consult the Equality Commission. One might also have thought, given the political sensitivity of this issue, that the Secretary of State would have consulted with the Irish Government, if not the political parties here, before these Regulations were drafted. Again, I am aware of no such consultation.
Mr Mandelson compounded that high-handed disregard, which has been his hallmark throughout his tenure here, by refusing to come to explain his thinking, or lack of it, to the Committee. He specifically asked that the Committee be formed to examine the Regulations that he provided us with. If the Secretary of State wishes to make a constructive intervention in this issue then he should do so with proper regard to the Good Friday Agreement.
The agreement clearly places the Six Counties in a unique constitutional framework. The changes to the Southern constitution, matched by legislation here, extend executive authority across the entire island and radically alter the constitutional position of this part of the island. In this context the norm of flying flags on Government buildings in Britain is not appropriate to the North of Ireland. Therefore, whatever British cultural symbols are evoked in public life here, the equivalent Irish cultural and political symbols should be given equal prominence. If agreement or consensus cannot be found on this issue at present, then a reasonable alternative is to suspend flying the flag until agreement or consensus can be found.
I also dispute the notion that these Regulations could be tolerated for a year to facilitate further consultation. If the Secretary of State has shown such disregard for those who consider themselves Irish in the draft of these Regulations, then how much regard will he show in one year’s time? Until agreement is reached on this issue no flags should fly. The Secretary of State’s draft Regulations are an incompetent and politically motivated attempt to deal with a very complex issue. He should be urged to go back and read the Good Friday Agreement, because this new political dispensation is about managing change, and, where custom and practice have disenfranchised people, it is about inclusiveness. Go raibh maith agat.

Mr David Ford: I thank the Chairperson, Mr Fraser Agnew, for the kind remarks he made about me during his initial speech. I heard them from outside the Chamber, although I was not in my place — as he delicately read into Hansard. He assured the House that I am not his father, and I am happy to concur and assure the House that he is not my son either.
On a more serious point, it is unfortunate — and that is a mild euphemism — that the work of the Committee was obstructed by the inability of either the Secretary of State or the head of the Civil Service to appear before it. They have turned what was an extremely difficult task into a well-nigh impossible one. However, it is a great pleasure to stand here and see that two of the four members of the Ulster Unionist Party who serve on the Committee have at least managed to be present. This contrasts with the debate earlier this afternoon, when the members of the Social Development Committee could not even appear to take part in any discussion.
The draft Regulations that were presented to us are unfortunate, but they are a necessity because of our failure to agree. It would have been much preferable if we had managed to reach an agreement as Members of the Assembly, or as Members of the Executive, and we had not required the Secretary of State to make the rules for us.
However, the rules sent to us were generally balanced. The fact that they have been criticised by both extremes suggests that they are not entirely wrong. They should be viewed as the best means for a way forward, although they are by no means the last word.
There is a need to promote shared symbols in this society, rather than those which perpetuate division. I wish the draft Regulations contained some encouragement, albeit limited encouragement, for the flying of the European Union flag — 9 May is only one day in the year. At least the European Union flag has a measure of support across the House, although that may be a matter of money for some Members and a matter of principle for others. The Secretary of State should consider extending the flying of the European Union flag, because it is a symbol which unites.
Similarly, St Patrick’s flag may not be the be-all and end-all, but it is recognised across the House. The use of St Patrick’s flag on St Patrick’s day and perhaps beyond deserves serious examination. It is another symbol which unites rather than divides.

Mr Billy Hutchinson: Is the Member aware that members of Sinn Féin on Belfast City Council claimed that StPatrick’s flag was sectarian because it was carried by O’Duffy’s blueshirts?

Mr David Ford: I am sure the Member does not expect me to speak for O’Duffy’s blueshirts. Perhaps there are people in another Assembly, one hundred miles down the road, to whom the Member should address that question if he ever gets there.
I am concerned about the proliferation of flags on lamp-posts and telegraph poles. Mr Dallat remarked earlier that more flags were flown this summer than had happened since the coronation of King George VI. One interesting thing, at least in my area, was how few flags were flown on private houses. Perhaps those who used to fly flags on private property were making a statement against the proliferation of flags representing various organisations as well as the Union flag and the flag of the former Government of Northern Ireland. These were flown inappropriately on public property all over the place and, unfortunately, were not removed by the public authorities. I am opposed to those parts of the Regulations, particularly regulations 7 and 8, which seem to permit the proliferation of flags — whatever flags they may be.
There is an issue about the use of the Union flag or the flags of other states on headquarters buildings or on buildings being visited. There is no justification for using that to support mass proliferation. The Equality Commission made the point — and Mr C Murphy may object to this — that people who work in a headquarters building may have to suffer things that others do not. I understood from the Equality Commission’s evidence that there is a ceremonial issue, which may mitigate normal fair employment regulations, and that should be accepted.
It was novel that Mr Weir appeared to speak for the Ulster Unionist Party, because he no longer holds that party’s Whip. He was sad that 12 July was no longer a flag-flying day. In the context of the principle of consent, if the Union flag is to fly as a simple recognition of Northern Ireland’s constitutional status and not as one section of society’s emblem, which is waved antagonistically in the face of others, it is utterly wrong for 12 July to be a designated flag-flying day. One of the things which the Secretary of State did correctly — [Interruption]
I am on a time limit.
The twelfth of July is not celebrated in any other UK region, and flying the flag on that day should not be supported.
I also have serious concerns about those who suggest that the tricolour should fly alongside the Union flag, because that will entrench divisions and make an inaccurate statement about Northern Ireland’s constitutional status. That suggests that only two groups in this society have rights, and that the rest do not. Those Nationalists who advocate this are suggesting that the Union flag should fly in perpetuity. If the tricolour should fly now in recognition of the rights of some, the Union flag should fly for ever — no matter what the constitutional status is — in order to recognise other people’s rights.
Mr Dallat talked at some length about the misuse of the Union flag. He was right, and I agree with him. However, that does not mean that the Union flag is not the flag of the state, as defined by the principle of consent. Dr Paisley commented about the misuse of tricolours and Union flags. Will he re-examine his last European election address and tell us if what purported to be a Union flag on it was drawn correctly?
We need to move towards a position of mutual respect. It is clear that at the moment we do not have that opportunity within the Regulations — [Interruption]
4.00 pm

Mr Peter Robinson: The 2% party.

Mr David Ford: It was 7% the last time.
The emphasis must be on building shared symbols and not on seeking to perpetuate those that divide. In this Assembly we have the example of flax flowers. This may be a kind of lowest common denominator, but at least it is a move forward. We must move in this direction, because until we can start to build issues and symbols which unite rather than divide, we will continue to perpetuate our problems.

Mr Cedric Wilson: The Northern Ireland Unionist Party and I will not be endorsing the contents of this report today. My party wisely refused to participate in this farcical Committee and, given what we have heard today, I am sure that the public will agree that it was farcical.
We refused to participate on the grounds that the flying of the Union flag throughout Northern Ireland, as in the other regions of the United Kingdom, is not negotiable. There are those on the Unionist side of the House who agreed, wittingly or unwittingly, to jump through the hoop that Mr Mandelson held out to them, insisting that they take part in this charade. This has provided Sinn Féin/IRA with a platform upon which to rail against anything that is British, including the Union flag.
To endorse this report today is to ask people on this side of the House to send a report to the Secretary of State that includes Sinn Féin’s views on tearing down the flag and parity of esteem for the tricolour. To do that would give the impression that the views expressed by Sinn Féin on the flags issue are as valid as Unionist views.
When I heard the Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee making his presentation today, I thought he had realised belatedly that my party had, in fact, made the right call on this issue. At the outset, he told us that he did not like the role that he had been given by the Committee; he had had difficulty with it; he did not like the remit of the Committee; and he did not like the timetable set by the Secretary of State.
The Chairman and some others have told us here today that they did not like this task and that they agree with us that the Union flag should not have been a matter for debate. Why, then, did they participate in the nonsensical charade of the Ad Hoc Committee on Flags? They tell us that it was because the Secretary of State told them that they had to. Well, I am glad to say that I come from a tradition in Unionism that is used to saying "No". It is used to saying "No" to the British Government, and it is used to saying "No" to Mr Mandelson when he wants us to participate in something that is detrimental to the interests of the Union and Northern Ireland.
I am disappointed that today we are faced with another media spectacle of a nonsense about flags in the Assembly. My party will not be assisting Sinn Féin to transmit its message to the Secretary of State, regardless of how those views are dressed up.
My party wishes to warn the Secretary of State that if, there is any departure from the established practice of flying of the Union flag in Northern Ireland, [when this Order is made,] a legal challenge may be brought on the matter.
I agree with Dr Paisley that if all else fails, the people of Northern Ireland will be the final arbiters of the matter. The Union flag will fly throughout Northern Ireland, and it will fly despite the best efforts of people to the contrary, whether through a bombing campaign or through the Belfast Agreement and this "peace process".
The members of the Ulster Unionist Party, and particularly Mr Trimble and his negotiating team, should be hanging their heads in shame today.
The PUP and other Unionists who took part in this said that it was a disgrace that the flag issue had to be revisited. MrErvine and MrTrimble and his colleagues told the people of Northern Ireland that this issue had been resolved in the Belfast Agreement. They told of the great deal that they had achieved for Ulster and for the people of Northern Ireland — the constitution was underpinned and copper fastened and the Union flag would fly proudly across Northern Ireland.
The people of Northern Ireland now see a small glimpse of betrayal, not just with regard to the RUC, which was supposed to have been saved, but also the flag issue. To whom are we entrusting the future of the Union and the flag? We are entrusting it to the man who has put our Colleagues through the hoop by sending a shoddy document to the Assembly insisting that they participate. I am glad to say that the Northern Ireland Unionist Party steadfastly refused to jump through MrMandelson’s hoop. He can find poodles elsewhere. The Northern Ireland Unionist Party says that the Union flag will fly in Northern Ireland because the people say that it will fly.

Mr Denis Watson: It is with regret and disappointment that I speak to this motion; regret and disappointment that the flying of the national flag should become the subject of debate for a Committee and the subject of a report.
My two Colleagues and myself sought election to the Assembly on the basis of our opposition to what we believed was an iniquitous agreement. We feared for the constitutional position of Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom as a result of it. This question of the flag compounds all our anxieties. As time goes past our warnings to the Unionist community have proved to be correct and our fears well founded. The Belfast Agreement has delivered almost certainly what its supporters have endorsed as constructive ambiguity. This extends to the constitutional position of Northern Ireland.
We are told that in the agreement is enshrined the principle of consent, yet while Northern Ireland is purported to be an integral part of the United Kingdom nothing must be displayed that might confirm this notion, and there are those who are trying to prevent us from doing so.
As happened with the review of the criminal justice system and the reform of the RUC, anything perceived to be British is to be removed from view and, it seems, obliterated from memory. It appears that only neutrality is permissible and acceptable. The majority of citizens in Northern Ireland wish to maintain the link with the United Kingdom. The most visible and outward expression of that position is the flying of the Union flag and to deny this is not only tantamount to denying the constitutional position of this Province but also a failure to recognise the principle of consent and the expressed wish of the majority.
The United Unionist Assembly Party contends that the flag issue is greater than matters of equality, neutrality, cultural heritage and identity. It is a constitutional question. As stated in our submission, to give credence to any of these false assertions is to discriminate against the wishes of the majority in favour of appeasing the demands of a vociferous minority.
It has been suggested in more than one submission that the Irish tricolour should fly alongside the Union flag. The tricolour is the national flag of a foreign country. It can not and should not be flown from our Government buildings, and it can not and ought not to be compared to the flying of the Scottish and Welsh national flags at their national Parliament and Assembly.
I am greatly concerned that we are faced with the prospect of being prohibited from flying the Union flag on Christmas Day and Easter Sunday — days of religious significance to all our citizens. Furthermore, the United Unionist Assembly Party believes that the enormous sacrifice by men and women from across the religious divide who paid the ultimate price should be remembered by the flying of the Union flag — the flag under which they fought — on 1July to commemorate the Great War.
In the course of the past year we have witnessed the debacle of the flag’s not being flown in Departments occupied by Nationalist Ministers. It is ironic and saddening that those who cry for equality the loudest are reluctant to set an example and afford the same courtesy to those of a different tradition. There is little tolerance to be found when it comes to the flying of the Union flag.
Some parties have suggested that regulations only be put in place for one year to enable further discussion and a general consensus to be found.
Consensus has already been found on the constitutional position of NorthernIreland. It will make no difference for the Unionist community in one year’s time because they will be no closer to accepting the flying of the Irish tricolour alongside the Union flag at Stormont. I strongly caution that whatever decisions the Secretary of State may make on the draft regulations, and whatever changes he implements, there should be no further appeasement regarding the flying of the flag on ParliamentBuildings and Government buildings.
There can be no question of removing the flag. This will only serve to further alienate the Unionist community and will see the matter becoming the running sore that the Secretary of State so dreads. Instead, sanctions of some kind must be introduced against those Ministers who neglect their duty and breach their code of conduct by refusing to fly the flag on their Department buildings. We should not see again such scant disregard from those in positions of authority.
The issue of the flag has been of great concern to the Unionist people, who feel that they have given much and received little in return in the one-way street of concessions that has become the peace process. They wonder why the flying of the flag is an issue at all. Yet they are not surprised that it is an issue, because everything has sadly become a matter for debate and a battle to be fought and won. I congratulate the Chairperson of the Committee on managing to bring together a report. It clearly sets out the positions of the various parties in the Assembly and we will be endorsing it.

Mr David Ervine: There is a clear sense of hurt in the Progressive Unionist Party that a Committee had to be formed at all. To date, the Secretary of State has abandoned his responsibilities as the guardian of NorthernIreland and its constitutional position within the UnitedKingdom.
Having said that, he has the opportunity to redeem himself. While this report is simply an expression of stated positions, the Secretary of State still needs to take responsibility for it. NorthernIreland is part of the UnitedKingdom and for as long as it is the wish of the majority it shall remain part of the UnitedKingdom.
The national flag is a national and international symbol identifying people and territory. That denial by Nationalism and by violent Nationalism says more about them than it does about us. Nationalists tell us that we Prods are fixated with symbols. But since Ministers, operating under the guise of SinnFéin, created this crisis and highlighted this difficulty, then perhaps it was not we Prods who became fixated with the symbols, it was the violent Nationalists, followed immediately by the Nationalists. That is par for the course.
A short time ago a Member of Sinn Féin said what I believe to be the most dangerous thing that has been said about the future of the political process:
"The difficulties that we suffer at the moment are to be expected since we are locked in a constitutional debate".
That shocked me because we are not locked in a constitutional debate. The people of NorthernIreland, by their free will, exercised an opinion at the ballot box that settled the constitutional argument for now. In the future there will be potential for the people of Northern Ireland to reaffirm what they already believe or change their minds. But that is for the future. Today there is no constitutional debate.
I find it quite frightening and I see it as having the most dangerous potential for the political process. It is all very well for SinnFéin to say that they cannot deliver until they prove to the people close to them that politics works. Meanwhile, back at the ranch every action they take and every word they utter is designed not to give any sense or appreciation to the rest of our society that politics is meant to work for them.
It seems to me to be alien; the partner in the process is behaving with great infidelity. The partner in the process behaving with great infidelity is assisted, I have to say, by the gutless partner, who is also beginning to behave with great infidelity. The gutless partner is, of course, the SDLP, which is trying to out-Sinn-Féin Sinn Féin. There is no hint that they will move to defend the Good Friday Agreement in conjunction with those on the Unionist side who have a common-sense approach to such things. Instead, they guard their backs against Sinn Féin.
The issue is their own electoral survival. I suppose it is like the Ulster Unionists trying to out-DUP the DUP at times, but nevertheless it should cross the mind of anybody thinking of going to the electorate. It might be better to vote for the organ-grinder than the monkey. As we found out in South Antrim quite recently, when you try to outdo the real thing, the real thing will always be voted for before you. The SDLP and the Ulster Unionists should keep that in mind.
The effect of the agreement is that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. I say from the bottom of my heart that Nationalist hatred, whether violent or otherwise, for the Union flag is, perhaps, an excuse, because it may be hatred for the people who appreciate the Union flag. We have a choice and we have a chance. Those who want to wind up the circumstances in my community by narrowing the ground of moderate Unionists who are prepared to, and capable of, making arrangements in this society work, have to bear in mind the price that we will all pay if we fail to make politics work, or if we just make politics work for the fellow with the AK47 in South Armagh, as it would seem Gerry Kelly has been trying to encourage us to do of late.
Why do Sinn Féin not stop hiding the truth? There is no united Ireland. They are playing a game, and you could nearly listen to it if you were knocking about the Felon’s Club. Anthony McIntyre and Tommy Gorman say that they are peaceful anti-Agreement Republicans, and that may be true. When they criticise Sinn Féin for selling out, Sinn Féin’s answer will be something like this: "Do not be stupid. How could we be doing badly? Look at the state of the Unionists. How could we be doing any way badly when they are tearing themselves apart, and we are facilitating that? They cannot come to terms with the realities of" — [Interruption].
I am talking about a flag, Mr McCartney. People might lose their lives, but that would hardly matter to you, leafy-land man!

Mr Robert McCartney: I do not kill them.

Mr David Ervine: Who does, Mr McCartney?

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr David Ervine: Who does, Mr Speaker? Maybe MrMcCartney wishes to answer. Who does kill them? Name them, Mr McCartney.

Mr Robert McCartney: The people who are fronting the UVF.

Mr David Ervine: Name them.

Mr Speaker: Order. I have to ask Members to address the Chair and to address the motion.

Mr David Ervine: Fair enough, Mr Speaker. The intellectual giant is frightened by the intellectual mouse. My arguments in relation to Sinn Féin — [Interruption]
I cannot work it out. When I do not attack Sinn Féin, there is a problem, and when I do attack Sinn Féin, there is a problem. I do not attack Sinn Féin, Mr Speaker, for the sake of attacking Sinn Féin. I attack Sinn Féin for the sake of the agreement, and it does not matter whether the issue is policing or flags. They are hyping circumstances up in their own communities as being make-or-break, and they are purposely transmitting that into my community.
That means that if the agreement is sound but the partner in the agreement is unsound then the agreement may fall. I say that with no pleasure whatsoever. There will be those who will say "I told you so." They may be right. Indeed, I may be right — but always wishing that I were wrong. The hope has to be that we deal in rational politics. The rational politics is that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom and the reflection of that is the flying of the Union flag on a series of days. No one has advocated, on the Unionist side or in this report, that the Union flag should be flown to insult the Nationalist community.
I would argue with the Nationalist community that they need to look at the potential benefits that we might just throw away in the longer term simply to get an opportunity to put the boot in the neck of the Prod that they perhaps always wanted to do. They have that opportunity now, and it is up to them whether they take it.

Ms Jane Morrice: I would like to record my disappointment at the lack of any serious attempt by the Flags Committee to properly discuss the issue of flag flying in this community. The Women’s Coalition took part in this Committee in the hope that we might, at the very least, widen the debate beyond the confines of the draft Regulations and into the fundamental issues underlying the Good Friday Agreement.
We believe that Committee members could have used this opportunity to listen to and learn from each other. Instead, we could not even agree clear procedures on how the Committee would work, let alone attempt to accommodate each other’s views on flag flying.
Undoubtedly, our inability to tackle the fundamental issues involved is very indicative of the delicate political climate. Because of the current tensions within our society, which we recognise, we accept that the time is not right to make decisions on flag flying. However, at the very least, we believed that a start could have been made to consider the options available — but that was not to be. Perhaps in the wider forum of this Assembly there are those who may be prepared to listen to others. I intend to use this opportunity to inform Members of the Women’s Coalition’s position on this issue in the hope that this might eventually achieve the goal that we all want, and that is an agreed position with which everyone can live.
As a coalition, representing many different views in this society, the debate within our own ranks on this issue is just as challenging. The difference, however, is that when we debate these things we listen to each other and try to accommodate each other’s needs. During a succession of meetings on this subject we debated all the option: one flag, two flags, no flag, new flag, and a combination of all of those. We chose to go with the first option.
Given the current political climate, we chose to accept the Mandelson Regulations as a holding position — we believe this should be the situation for a 12-month period only. We do not believe, as a coalition, that the flying of the Union flag alone should be a long-term option. Why? It is because we need an agreed solution. It is important for the wider community to understand our reasons. Our society should eventually accept the need for shared symbols that reflect the diversity of our cultural traditions and political allegiances and are agreed by all.
The process by which we arrive at agreement is almost as important as the outcome. We must follow a process of listening to each other, finding a means to accommodate each other and, eventually, living and working together. That is why we ask the Assembly to give the Flags Committee another chance — perhaps not at this moment — to look not just at the Regulations but at the fundamental issues.
What are the issues? Recognition is the key. On the one hand, the Good Friday Agreement recognises — no one disputes it — the constitutional position of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom. On the other, it recognises the need for parity of esteem for people of different traditions. On the one side, Unionists and Loyalists want visible recognition of that constitutional status by the flying of the Union flag. On the other side, Nationalists and Republicans want visible recognition of their equal status through the flying of both flags. There are two options. In addition, we must not forget all those who fail to understand why we are even debating the issue of flags when there are so many other more pressing, albeit less political, issues that we need to attend to.
How do we square the circle? The idea of a new flag, for example, looks like the most refreshing approach, but I have to admit that political reality suggests that consensus on that is a long way off. Designing a new flag could be a creative, perhaps even exciting, project in which we could involve our younger generation. A moratorium on flags is another option but, as we have seen on our streets, any attempt to tamper with flag flying only exacerbates the situation in our communities. None of us wants that. The two flags option that has been put forward must also be looked at as a way of ensuring the visible recognition of the parity of esteem enshrined in the Good Friday Agreement. We cannot shy away from the commitments that we made in the agreement, and many believe that that option is the only one that will ensure equality between our communities.
There is another option, which has not been put on the table, as far as I am aware, but which deserves serious consideration. It would combine the wishes of everyone and reflect almost exactly the situation regarding the constitutional position, devolution and shared institutions. The Union flag would fly on all buildings with direct links to London; a new flag for devolved institutions; the Union flag and the tricolour on North/South institutions on both sides of the border, dare we suggest; and no flag to be flown anywhere else. That would be a new approach, but we need creative thinking.
The issues must be addressed in the coming months if we are to respect both the letter and the spirit of the Good Friday Agreement. In accepting the Mandelson Regulations as a holding measure, we call for a wider public debate, which would allow us to take account of all the options and reach an agreed solution.
The Committee Clerk and his team had a very difficult task in drawing up this report, and I think the members all agreed that they did an excellent job.

Mr Robert McCartney: This has been a bizarre debate. Cedric Wilson has threatened to go to law, instead of chaining himself to the railings. The leader of the PUP has suggested that he is the voice of moderate Unionism, when the paramilitary organisation to which the press euphemistically say that his party is "intimately connected" is murdering fellow so-called Loyalists on the streets of the Shankill.
However, nothing is more bizarre than the agreement itself. It is sometimes called the Good Friday Agreement to give it overtones of sanctity. It is also called the Belfast Agreement, because that is its official title. In reality, it is a complete farce, because it is not an agreement at all. An agreement is something entered into between a number of parties who have some common idea of what it means and have given their consent to it. This debate illustrates one more section of the alleged agreement in respect of which there is no agreement.
There is no agreement on the principle of consent. Some parties do not acknowledge that consent at all. There is no agreement concerning what the Belfast Agreement suggests should be the proper course for the regulation and reform of the RUC. There is no meeting of minds on what the agreement says about decommissioning, and there will not be any meeting of minds as to what the agreement says about the reform of the criminal justice system.
This so-called agreement is a mass of chaos. Everyone can claim — like Humpty Dumpty — that it means whatever they want it to mean. Nowhere is this lack of agreement more evident than in the submissions put to the Flags Committee. The pro-Union parties, Mr Blair, Mr Ahern, Tom, Dick and Harry all say that the jewel in the crown of this agreement is the principle of consent: that Northern Ireland shall remain part of the sovereign territory of the United Kingdom until such times as a majority of the people living there shall determine otherwise. That is their position. From there they move in a course of steady logic, asking "If we are part of the United Kingdom, and that is the current wish of the majority, how can it be gainsaid that the flag of the United Kingdom should not continue for all relevant purposes to be flown in Northern Ireland in the same manner, on the same days, on the same buildings and under the same procedures as it flies in Salford, Sussex, Cardiff or Edinburgh? We are part of the United Kingdom."
On the other hand we have the submission of the SDLP. The SDLP does not want the flag to fly at all. That is its fundamental position. Why? Because the SDLP and Sinn Féin do not view the agreement as a settlement of our political problems, despite all the cant, hypocrisy and mock piety paid by the likes of Mr Dallat to diversity and working together and communal spirit and all the ersatz ecumenism that bleeds out of the SDLP.
They do not want the flag to fly at all, because the Irish Republic, the SDLP, Sinn Féin, the Provisional IRA, the dissident IRA, the Real IRA — no matter what you call them and no matter what their different views are on the future of Northern Ireland — share certain views, which they have made manifest in writing documents, party manifestos and declarations. These are, first, that partition must be ended; secondly, that the British must withdraw from Northern Ireland; thirdly, that there must be self-determination on an all-Ireland basis for the future of Northern Ireland; and, fourthly, that the only possible solution is a united Ireland. They have all made it clear that on no terms will they countenance an internal settlement within the United Kingdom, no matter how politically or socially beneficial that might be. That is their combined fundamental position, and it becomes most evident when we discuss the symbols, flags and emblems that determine the national identity of the majority of people in any given area.
That is where they have a complete comity of interest, and that is what, fundamentally, this debate is about — an agreement that is no agreement. This is about an agreement constructed ambiguously to deceive everyone so that gullible and naïve Unionists can be the medium for their own destruction under the belief that this devolved Government — which, like all others, is vulnerable to nothing more lethal than the Prime Minister’s pen — is some great bulwark that will protect them, their identity, their future and those of their children and grandchildren. Absolute poppycock.
This debate on something so symbolic as the flag focuses us on the real and underlying principles of what is going on. When a flag is flown in a part of a sovereign state whose inhabitants have absolutely no fear about their constitutional future, have no worries that they or their children may at some imminent date form part of another state, they have no difficulty in saying "Well, what about it? What about flags and symbols?" In the conservative country clubs and golf clubs, and other middle-class areas in Northern Ireland, they say "Flags? Silly people, bothering about flags".
Flags are of real significance when they affect people whose constitutional future, national identity, place, traditions and history are under threat. And that is why in Northern Ireland the flag is of infinitely more significance than it is in any other part of the United Kingdom — it represents what may be an ephemeral life for Unionists. That is what must be addressed. No amount of committee discussion or messing about will alter that fundamental position.
This non-agreement is being used, through the medium of constructive ambiguity, to serve the purpose of the SDLP and Sinn Féin — although the latter more overtly recognises it as a transitional mechanism — to take this place out of the United Kingdom and into the Republic. For that reason, all emblems, symbols, flags, coats of arms in courthouses and anything else that indicates the identity of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland must be removed.
This debate is as worthless as the agreement, for it is papering over fundamental differences that can only be resolved by a return to the fundamental principles of democratic government.

Dr Esmond Birnie: The Ulster Unionist Party welcomes this report and in broad terms also welcomes the Secretary of State’s Regulations. This is notwithstanding our concern at some flaws in the detail of those. These regulations became necessary because of the perceived lack of clarity with respect to both the legislative and legal position regarding the flying of the national flag in Northern Ireland.
There had been from the period of the 1921-72 Stormont Parliament onwards a reliance on custom and practice. Some Members are saying that it is a shame that we have to discuss this issue at all and that it should be a matter for legislation. Other countries do have legislation regarding the status of their national flag, notably the United States, where there are severe penalties if you happen to burn it, for example.
Until these Regulations come into force the current position that applies does contain certain ironies. There is good ground for saying that fundamentally flag flying in the United Kingdom is and has been for some time a matter of royal prerogative. That was suggested in the 1801 Act of Union. The implication of that is quite interesting. It implies that when Sinn Féin Ministers thought that they could refuse to fly the flag they were doing so in an attempt to exercise, as Crown Ministers, the royal prerogative — an interesting position for an Irish Republican
The Ulster Unionist Party believes that its position on regulating the flying of the Union flag is grounded on both human rights practice and the Belfast Agreement, which, unlike Mr McCartney, we do not regard as a worthless document.
The United Kingdom flag is representative of United Kingdom sovereignty in Northern Ireland. That sovereignty is recognised in international law and in various parts of the agreement. It is true that many European countries have substantial national minorities within their populations, but no one suggests in other parts of Europe that such minorities should have an enshrined right for official flying of a foreign flag. This is in direct contrast to the position suggested by the Women’s Coalition. In truth, the economic, social and cultural section of the Belfast Agreement, the one which refers to parity of esteem, does not bear on the issue of flag flying, nor does any recommendation relating to symbols in the Patten report.
We applaud the good sense of the SDLP, at least at local level in Craigavon, where their councillors have recently agreed to regulations providing for the flying of the Union flag.
There are defects in the Regulations. Regulations 3(1) and 5(1) should state that when the flag of another state is flying to mark the visit of a foreign head of state, it should fly at a lower level. The definition of a Government building at regulation 2(2) and the consequent list of such is inadequate and incomplete. It does not include Stormont or the Interpoint Centre, the headquarters of the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure, as Mr Weir pointed out. The Regulations fail to provide for buildings which may become Government buildings in the future, and there is no specification given as to the sanctions that would apply if the flag failed to be flown.
Some Unionists will take an attitude toward flag flying similar to Winston Churchill’s on cigar smoking. He believed that cigars should be smoked before, during and after meals, and at all intervals in between. Some will say that that should apply to the flying of the Union flag.
In contrast, the Ulster Unionist Party agrees with these Regulations, insofar as they place the flying of the flag on the same footing as in the rest of the United Kingdom, as was the view of Lord Faulkner in the House of Lords on 16 May this year. The regulated flying of the flag on 17 days out of 365 upholds our constitutional position without flaunting the flag. Thus, the Ulster Unionist Party supports this motion.

Mr Alban Maginness: I thank my Colleague from North Belfast, Mr Agnew, for chairing the Committee. This was a very difficult task, and one which he did with everybody’s support. Having listened to this debate and having sat through Committee meetings for many days, I now hate flags. Flags are probably one of the greatest curses ever visited on this unhappy and divided community of ours, and I suspect that there are many people outside this House who would agree with me. Flags bring out the worst in people in our community. They focus on one identity, whether it be national, religious or otherwise. They form an exclusive sense of identity, which turns into a pathology — a sickness — which affects the body politic.
Flag waving and the sacredness of flags have created great problems throughout the world. In the Middle East today we witnessed the outworking of that type of exclusive identification with one side or another. We saw the death of young children in Gaza, the death of two Israeli soldiers in Ramallah and the outworking, in terms of barbarism, of the exclusive attachment to a national identity.
I believe that the introduction of the flags Regulations and the Secretary of State’s attempt to impose them on us was ill-judged. In our present political climate, there is no hope of agreement in relation to flags or symbols. We in the SDLP have looked at the issue of flags and symbols for some time, and we have tried to approach the issue sensitively. We have tried to create political consensus right across the sectarian divide. However, the political exercise that was undertaken in the Committee showed, from the very beginning, that there was very little or no chance of achieving political consensus. Nor did it. People reverted to a populist position rather than a position of consensus, and that is to be deeply regretted.
The SDLP put forward a submission, which you can read in the report. It said that we ground our position in the Good Friday Agreement, which calls for sensitivity in dealing with the issue of flags and symbols. Further to that, we accept the consent principle contained in the agreement, which Dr Birnie and other Members referred to during this debate. We accept that, of course, but the consent principle does not end the argument. There is more to the agreement than the consent principle. For example, paragraph 1(v) of the part of the agreement that deals with constitutional issues says
"the power of the sovereign government with jurisdiction there shall be exercised with rigorous impartiality on behalf of all the people in the diversity of their identities and traditions and shall be founded on the principles of full respect for, and equality of, civil, political, social and cultural rights, of freedom from discrimination for all citizens, and of parity of esteem and of just and equal treatment for the identity, ethos and aspirations of both communities".
The concept of parity of esteem is grounded not only in the consent principle but also in paragraph 1(v). This must be applied to our political culture here and to the operation of our institutions. The current Government, who introduced the flags Regulations, are governed by the international treaty between the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic, and they have obligations to extend the principle of parity of esteem. If we look critically at these Regulations we can see that they are not meeting these obligations by introducing the flags Regulations, because there is no parity of esteem in those Regulations.
The Committee did not come up with a solution, but that is not to say that the Committee’s deliberations were without value. The only oral evidence we heard was from the Equality Commission, whose preferred option was to have no flags at all in work places. Government buildings are not just Government buildings; they are buildings where people work. They are workplaces, and the principles and practices of fair treatment and equality and fair employment apply to them as well. The evidence given by the Equality Commission should be read carefully. Members of the Equality Commission made it quite plain that they did not see the flying of the flag as their preferred option, and they saw a proliferation of flags on Government buildings as an unacceptable practice. It is important to take their advice seriously because they are experts in this field.
Advice was given sensitively and carefully to the Committee, not in an effort to railroad, but genuinely and sincerely to advise. The commission made an important contribution to the debate. It could not live with regulations 2(2) and 7. When the Secretary of State looks at these Regulations, it is important that he takes its considered opinion into account.
The SDLP believes that it will be very difficult to build a consensus on the flags issue at this point. However, we do believe that a consensus can be built, and our submission stated that there should be no flags now, which we regard as an interim position, not an absolutist one. What we said in our submission was that we should — [Interruption]

Mr Jim Shannon: Will the Member justify the decision taken by Down District Council to remove the Union flag and will he tell me how that gives equality to the Unionist people in the Down District Council area?

Mr Alban Maginness: It is quite consistent to say there should be no flags. In the interim period we say there should be no flags. We should work together to bring about a situation where there is genuine equality and parity of esteem for both the Union flag and the tricolour, or a situation where there are common symbols, a common flag and where consensual emblems are developed within the body politic.
We are looking forward to building that with our Unionist Colleagues in the Assembly. That is not an unreasonable position, and I ask Members to consider it seriously. Finally, the Regulations to be introduced and enacted should be time-limited to one year and reviewable after that year.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: I congratulate the Chairperson of the Committee, MrFraserAgnew, for doing a very difficult job. I also congratulate his Clerk and Deputy Clerk, who also did a very difficult job and presented a report.
I am disappointed by the comment MrCedricWilson made earlier in this debate, and I am sorry he has now left the Chamber. I was quite alarmed at what he said. He said "This matter should not be debated, and it should not be up for discussion." However, he came here today, and he debated the issue and discussed it. One wonders why he did not go to the Committee meetings and debate and discuss the issue there, but I will leave that for others to work out.
I am also concerned about what JaneMorrice said. She said she had many sensible proposals, and she presented a number of proposals, none of which was sensible. Her first proposal, as far as I recall, was that we should invite a flagmaker to the Committee meeting and interview that person. I am amazed at some of her proposals.
The SDLP say you cannot eat a flag, the Ulster Unionist Party say you cannot smoke a flag, the Women’s Coalition say you have got to make a new flag. All Unionists want to do is fly the flag, and I think we should be entitled to fly the flag. We should have the opportunity to fly the flag properly and give it the respect that it deserves.
From the first time the Committee met, it was abundantly clear that neither the SDLP nor its friends in IRA/Sinn Féin wanted a report. That was their bottom line; they wanted to block the publication of a report, because they knew that a report would indicate that the majority opinion in Northern Ireland is that the national flag should fly. They did everything to thwart that.
I am pleased that there has been a report — a report that indicates that the majority opinion is that the flag should fly. How was the SDLP’s position thwarted? I must congratulate them. Their incompetence and inability to make their case as well as the inconsistency of their members in their attendance and in the arguments that they presented helped ensure that there was a report and that that report ended up being published and presented to this House.
Let us go through the minutes of evidence. On the first day that the Committee met, a MrJohnDallat arrived late — in fact so late that the vote for the chairmanship of the Committee had already taken place. Unfortunately for him, the SDLP proposal fell by one vote — MrJohnDallat’s vote — since he was not there. I think that his poor timekeeping advanced the cause and ensured that a Unionist got the chairmanship of that Committee.
He did not learn his lesson, however, because on the second day, he was late again, and a vote was taken at that meeting on the format of the report. That format has been presented to the Assembly, but his party opposed it. If he had been there, and voted, this report might never have been presented.
Once again his lateness meant that this report was published, and the SDLP’s plan to block the report was thwarted. He will have to get up a lot earlier in the morning if he wants to do his job properly. I am sure that the Nationalists are concerned, and if they want to blame someone for inconsistencies and problems in this report, they should blame the person who did not vote, who was not able to do his job, who was not able to come and vote. Instead they cast blame and aspersions on other people, blaming Israel, blaming the war, blaming the rain, blaming everything but themselves, because they could not come and vote and do their job.
On day three of the Committee, another member of the SDLP replaced him. Unfortunately for the SDLP the replacement did not fill the competency gap, because they put in another incompetent member. After agreeing — and page 20 of our report shows this — one day to vote on a series of propositions as presented by the various parties, a Mr Attwood of West Belfast —

Mr Edwin Poots: He is running away.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: Cheerio.
The next day, Mr Attwood denied that this decision had been taken.
After serving on a Committee with Mr Attwood, I fully understand the comments made by the Law Society about his ability to do his job properly in another place, because the party was completely incompetent in how it handled that position. After failing to stop the production of this report, Mr Attwood failed to inform his party colleagues. At the next meeting, when yet another SDLP member was brought into the team to fill the competency gap, that person was not informed about the previous decisions that had been taken by the Committee. As a result, they made another calculated error. If that was not bad enough, the SDLP, after presenting a written submission to the Committee, brought in a second version that fundamentally changed their original proposals. This is recorded on page 23 of the report.
Today, Mr "All-Bran" Maginness, said in a reply to my Colleague, Mr Shannon from Strangford, that no flag should fly. Yet their own proposal states that a flag should fly, and according to bullet point number 4 on page 7 it should fly in accordance with the Regulations made under the Flags (Northern Ireland) Order 2000. So what do they want? Do they want the flag to fly or not? It appears that the SDLP are so confused and inconsistent on this issue that they are to blame for the mess that they have got themselves into.
A succession of SDLP gaffes, one after another, was laughable. However, the most laughable gaffe of all was their failure to recommend any of their proposals by way of a vote. They did not even accord any of their proposals the dignity of a vote of support. Today they are not even going to vote for their proposals; instead they are going to abstain.
The Committee was done a disservice by the failure of the Secretary of State and the head of the Northern Ireland Civil Service to give evidence about their Flags (Northern Ireland) Order 2000. They should have come to the Assembly if they were really interested. They should have come and defended this Order.
This Assembly should learn a salient lesson; future Ad Hoc Committees should be given the power to call witnesses and demand papers, so that a Secretary of State cannot treat a Committee of this House in such an offhand manner. In reality, the Secretary of State could not defend this Order, just as he cannot defend his home loans.
What does this report show? It shows that the majority of people in Northern Ireland, represented by their elected representatives on the Committee, want to see the national flag flying. If the Secretary of State reads this report from paragraph 11 onwards, he will see that overwhelming view time and time again. People say that there was no unity as to what flag should be flown — there was unity that the national flag should fly. That was the unified position put forward by the Ulster Unionist Party, the Democratic Unionist Party and the United Unionist Assembly Party — that the national flag should fly.
Northern Ireland ought not to be treated as a place apart, and that is what this report shows. The Ulster people, who are British citizens, should be accorded full respect and dignity by being allowed to see their flag flying here in our Parliament and on all Government buildings. The flag should fly irrespective of who the Minister is. If the Minister is from a party that opposes the flying of the flag, he should not be allowed to prevent the flying of the flag and insult the people in any way.
If the Secretary of State had any dignity or respect for the people of Northern Ireland and their elected representatives, he would read this report and draw from it the fact that the majority of people want to see the flag flying. It should fly.

Mrs Joan Carson: It is with some regret that I find it necessary to speak on the issue of sovereignty, epitomised by the debate on the flying of the national flag. I am sorry that the SDLP started by following the same old Nationalist model of abstention. I regret Mr Dallat’s remarks.
The Belfast Agreement does not give either the Northern Ireland Assembly or the Secretary of State any authority to create Regulations on how or when the national flag should be flown. The issue of flag days is decided by royal proclamation. Despite the Secretary of State’s intervention, we, as an integral part of the United Kingdom, have been flying the flag in conjunction with all other parts of the United Kingdom. The constitutional issues raised by this debate were recognised and established in the Belfast Agreement, and we have heard it all hashed through several times today. Both Governments — and I will quote it again, as some people do not remember or cannot read —
"recognise the legitimacy of whatever choice is freely exercised by a majority of the people of Northern Ireland with regard to its status."
Paragraph (iii) says
"it would be wrong to make any change in the satus of Northern Ireland save with the consent of a majority of its people."
In paragraph (v) the Governments
"affirm that whatever choice is freely exercised by a majority of the people of Northern Ireland, the power of the sovereign government with jurisdiction there shall be exercised with rigorous impartiality on behalf of all the people."
The agreement goes on to talk about diversity, identities, tradition, and all the rest. On constitutional issues, Annex A is unambiguous:
"It is hereby declared that Northern Ireland in its entirety remains part of the United Kingdom."
We are not anywhere else; we are in the United Kingdom.
It is alleged that some members of the Northern Ireland Civil Service asked two Sinn Féin Members whether they wished to fly the Union flag. Can we believe it? It is mind-boggling. Civil servants, who have been dictating that they knew policy, and everything else, for years, when we had our Westminster Ministers here, did not know what to do in the circumstances.
It appears that in law Northern Ireland Ministers do not have powers. Those lie with the Departments of the Government in Northern Ireland. It appears that Departments are legally bodies incorporate and that the Northern Ireland Civil Service had the power to advise Ministers how and when to fly flags. The Ministers did not have the right to ban the flags.
When the question arose, what did the civil servants do? In the usual Civil Service manner, they referred the matter to their legal section. Again they could find no regulation governing the flying of Union flags on Government buildings. For civil servants, that is rather strange. Have they never heard of the recognised fall-back expedient? In the absence of formal or written agreement, it is totally acceptable to refer to custom and practice. With 78 years of custom and practice behind them, there does not appear to have been a man, or even a woman, to point that out.
So much for the majority will, the status of Northern Ireland, the power of the sovereign Government, traditions, civil and cultural rights, parity of esteem, just and equal treatment, identity and ethos. If the SDLP and Sinn Féin, as representatives of the Nationalist people, cannot accept that Northern Ireland is an integral part of the United Kingdom, their support for the Belfast Agreement must be questioned.
If they cannot accept this basic tenet of the agreement, what is their attitude to giving reciprocal recognition to the principle of full respect for and equality of civil, political, social and cultural rights and parity of esteem, identity, ethos, and aspiration to both communities? The agreement recognises the existence of Northern Ireland, not the North of Ireland. A major step forward, which would help to assuage some of the Unionist community’s concerns, would be for a party to take a small step towards recognising the will of the majority and the status of Northern Ireland by representing a community other than its own. Respect must be given to the power of the sovereign Government and to the civil and cultural rights of others.
Member states of the European Union are obliged to recognise the land frontiers and the sovereignty of their neighbouring states. It is inconceivable that the Government of the Republic of Ireland should lend legitimacy to the view of Sinn Féin and the Women’s Coalition that the tricolour should be flown alongside the Union flag. There is no precedent in European Union history for any such impingement upon the sovereignty and identity of any state. This debate is not about negative arguments — its aim is to establish and reinforce the indisputable expectation that citizens and taxpayers of a country should recognise the symbols and identity of that country. This debate is about the recognition of sovereignty and the flying of the Union flag with dignity on all public buildings on recognised dates.
I want to see an end to abuse of the national flag, such as when flags are left fluttering their lives away on lamp-posts. I hope we will reinstate the Union flag as a state emblem which can be flown with order and with respect and causes no offence to any citizen of our country. I re-emphasise the expression "citizen of our country". We are citizens here.

Mr Peter Robinson: When the Belfast Agreement was signed, it was clear to many of us that the incompetent Unionists who drafted it left very serious flaws in the text and that many holes existed which would be exploited later. I expressed this view at the time of the referendum and have done so on many occasions since then. Mr McCartney is correct in saying that the so-called constructive ambiguity, which Mr Trimble vaunts as the hallmark of the Belfast Agreement, has allowed him to fool many of his party members and ordinary Unionists into thinking that the only possible interpretation of it was the one he made himself.
Mrs Carson expressed the view that her interpretation of the Belfast Agreement was the only possible one. Clearly, her interpretation was inadequate, otherwise we would not be discussing this matter here today. It is because of their incompetence in dealing with the issue that this Order and these Regulations have to be discussed by the Assembly today. The Ulster Unionist Party has something to answer to the community for.
The Chairperson indicated that the Committee made the sensible decision to ensure that a full report was produced. We could have gone into the Committee, used the Chairperson’s casting vote, passed many propositions on a majority basis, ignored everything else and brought forward what would have been a Unionist report to the Assembly.
What would have happened? The SDLP and Sinn Féin would have put down a petition of concern, and there would not have been sufficient numbers from both sections of the community for a cross-community vote. The Committee’s report would have collapsed, and no advice would have gone to the Secretary of State. This was the option that faced us. Saner heads recognised that it would be better to let the Secretary of State see the weight of opinion in the Assembly, as defined by the Committee, and this resulted in a series of propositions. The level of support for each was gauged, and the results are in the report for the Secretary of State to see.
I agree with my Colleague. I suspect that there was a clear intention on the part of Nationalists to ensure that a Unionist perspective from this Assembly would not arrive on the desk of the Secretary of State. However, it has turned out otherwise. The Ulster Unionist Party, when given the opportunity to show its support for other propositions, was able to support every one of the propositions made by the Democratic Unionist Party — apart from one. The one proposition that the Ulster Unionist Party felt unable to support was a simple one. The Democratic Unionist Party argued that there should be no prohibition on the flying of the Union flag on Government buildings at any time — no prohibition. It did not say that it should fly at all times, but it removes the prohibition, which was expressly put into the legislation. The Ulster Unionist Party want a prohibition. They want it to be an offence to fly the Union flag on Government buildings, except on a dozen or so days in the year. I find that difficult —

A Member: Will the Member give way?

Mr Peter Robinson: I would if I had not been restricted on time. If the Member made an inadequate speech, he has only himself to blame. He should not attempt to make an inadequate contribution during mine.
I want to congratulate the Chairman for the job that he has done and to join with other Colleagues who mentioned the role played by the Clerk and all of the staff who assisted us. My Colleague was, perhaps, a little too harsh on Mr John Dallat. I think there was a feeling — and it could yet be true — that he is actually a closet Unionist. I think he was standing outside the door waiting for us to get a Unionist into the Chair before he would come through it. He was standing outside the door to help us get the right processes underway. It is unfair of people to suggest that he was sleeping in his bed instead of doing his duty.
Nonetheless, the SDLP position is certainly one of confusion. This was clearly identified by my Colleague, MrIanPaisleyJnr. During the course of this debate there were several references to the SDLP’s position and whether it was that no flags should fly or that flags were acceptable on some occasions. Mention was made of Down District Council. I wonder why no one mentioned Craigavon Borough Council. The SDLP entered into an agreement to fly the flag there. There is no condemnation or disapproval from the SDLP on the Craigavon composition. Therefore, I must assume that it has a soft spot for its representatives in Craigavon and agrees to some extent with what they are doing. The SDLP is presenting a totally confused position. In Down its position is no Union flag, in this Chamber it is no Union flag, in the Senate Chamber it is a Union flag sometimes, and in Craigavon Borough Council it is a Union flag on certain days of the year. I wish it would get its act together. It seems to be in some considerable confusion.
As far as the Northern Ireland Unionist Party (NIUP) is concerned, there is also some confusion. I note that it intends to abstain on this motion, along with Sinn Féin/IRA and the SDLP, although Sinn Féin/IRA have not made it clear whether they are abstaining. At any rate, the NIUP position is that its Members are going to be the mighty men and carry out a legal challenge.
According to tonight’s ‘Belfast Telegraph’ they will need their money, as they will be fighting elections everywhere. So before they spend it on a fruitless challenge, perhaps somebody should tell them about the supremacy of Parliament? An Order in Council was passed in the House of Commons, which granted the Secretary of State legal authority for what he is doing. They are entitled to say that they do not like it — I do not like it; I voted against it — but it has been passed and they cannot make a legal challenge against it. From time to time fuzzy thinking comes in from both the Northern Ireland Unionist Party and the Ulster Unionists. They asked "What reason have Unionists to participate on this Committee?", and they are entitled to an answer.
I opposed the Flags (Northern Ireland) Order 2000 in the House of Commons. I opposed the Belfast Agreement. They opposed the Belfast Agreement, but that does not stop them from participating in this Assembly. They applied some restrictions on their involvement in it, but not on their receipt of remuneration from it. Why do they do it? They do it because their election manifesto, like my manifesto, said that they would come here to fight on behalf of the people they represent and to take a stand for the Union. That means taking a stand for the Union flag as well, because it is one of the symbols of the Union. Although there is no legal challenge open to us to overturn what the Secretary of State has done, we will take every possible step and use every measure available to show our opposition to what he and the Government are doing at the behest of the Ulster Unionist Party.
Do not forget where this came from. Some Members from the Ulster Unionist Party will remember an Ulster Unionist Council meeting where their deputy leader produced a little piece of paper from his inside pocket and told everyone that he had resolved all of the problems on policing and flags. Unfortunately, the Committee did not accept my proposal for that document to be brought before us so that we could see what undertaking the deputy leader of the Ulster Unionist Party was given. It is clear that any problems that we have in relation to flags stem from the Ulster Unionist Party because the problems were not dealt with during the negotiations on the Belfast Agreement. The undertakings that their deputy leader claimed to have amounted to absolutely nothing. We are here to stand for the flag. It is a symbol of the United Kingdom. Long may it fly.

Mr Sam Foster: Today’s attack by Mr Peter Robinson was an assault on the Unionist Party. One of his greatest attacks was in Clontibret. Which was the more vicious?

A Member: Play it again, Sam. You have used it 20 times already.

Mr Sam Foster: It is a good one.
I read the report and find it most offensive that we have to discuss the Union flag, because our Government have failed again. This motion should never have been brought before the Assembly — all of this was decided in the referenda several years ago, in spite of what Mr Peter Robinson says. At that time the participants in the Assembly, Her Majesty’s Government and the Government of the Republic of Ireland agreed that Northern Ireland, in its entirety, would remain part of the United Kingdom and would not cease to do so without the consent of the majority. I am not aware that any change has since taken place.
That means that this state is under the sovereignty of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It follows then that the Union flag, and none other, is the sovereign flag of this jurisdiction. That is contained in the terms of the Belfast Agreement.
No further procrastination on the flying of the Union flag is necessary. As usual, the Government have been weak on this issue, and others have used it as an excuse to undermine David Trimble. How pathetic is that?
We continue to hear the hackneyed phrase "parity of esteem". Parity of esteem is a just entitlement under the sovereignty of Her Majesty, but not of the sovereignty of Her Majesty. There is one jurisdiction in Northern Ireland, and it is that of Her Majesty. Let us not insult her by saying otherwise.
It is true that today’s politicians may be characterised by their vain attempts to change the world and their inability to change themselves.
The ungracious, divisive attitude of Mr Dallat and the SDLP has surprised me.
The jurisdiction of Her Majesty in all the aspects of the Assembly is unambiguously evident in the Northern Ireland Act 1998. The Act states
"A Bill shall become an Act when it has been passed by the Assembly and has received Royal Assent."
It also says
"The executive power in Northern Ireland shall continue to be vested in Her Majesty"
and
"executive powers of Her Majesty in relation to Northern Ireland shall be exercisable on Her Majesty’s behalf by…a Northern Ireland Minister or Northern Ireland department."
All Ministers are therefore acting in an executive role for, and on behalf of, Her Majesty. That is what was signed up to in the agreement; there is no question about that, even though some people might want to move the goal posts. Surprisingly, Jane Morrice seemed to be trying to reopen a debate that had already been resolved in the agreement.
Is this a double-cross or a sign of a lack of integrity? It has been said of politicians that they will double-cross a bridge when they come to it. Is this argument about respecting the sovereign flag of this jurisdiction hard evidence of a lack of political integrity, or are some people doing a U-turn, thus failing to fully implement the agreement that they have accepted?

Mr Peter Robinson: Look who is talking about U-turns.

Mr Sam Foster: The Ulster Unionist Party is fully implementing the agreement; it has no hesitation about that. Our stance is the same with regard to the crown on the crest of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. The crown is the symbol of Her Majesty’s sovereignty; it is portrayed on the crest of every other police force in the United Kingdom. It must be remembered that we are part of the United Kingdom; we seek no more than the agreement that received the overwhelming backing of the people in a democratic vote.
The Union flag is entitled to be flown on all Government buildings, as prescribed in the paper. It is also the solemn duty of Government to preserve the crown on the crest of the RUC. Any move to do otherwise would be insulting and offensive and would deny the sovereignty of Her Majesty in this part of her realm. We must never forget that, and that has been accepted in the agreement. The matter has been resolved, and no one can move the goal posts.
For too long the Government have welshed on their duty to citizens in this part of the realm. The Union flag must be flown with dignity and decorum on the designated days, not as an act of offence but out of respect for the sovereignty of Her Majesty. The crown must be protected as a symbol of that sovereignty too. The motion is a further step in the full implementation of the agreement ratified by the majority of people two years ago.

Rev William McCrea: I want to congratulate the Chairman of the Committee on the excellent task that he has carried out. We appreciate that it was a difficult task, considering that there are so many diverse opinions on the matter, which, we were told, was already solved. The hon Member from Fermanagh and South Tyrone said a moment ago that, really, there is no issue — it is a non-issue. That is far from the truth. In fact, the people of Northern Ireland have been sold a con trick. We are told by one pro-agreement group that everything was in the agreement, that everything had been agreed and signed up to and that the position of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom was secure. We were told that everything was hunky-dory — in fact, so hunky-dory that the same Minister came to the despatch box a few weeks ago and reported from the cross-border bodies on behalf of his Colleague, Barbara Brown. Everything was wonderful.
Since the Assembly came back from recess, we have heard a raft of reports from cross-border bodies and cross-border meetings. There seems to be more cross-border meetings and cross-border bodies than there are meetings within the Province. It seems that the Irish Republic has more to say about what happens in Northern Ireland than the United Kingdom Government. That is the reality of the Belfast Agreement, and it exposes the total treachery of the Belfast Agreement. The people of Northern Ireland were sold a lie.
That the issue should ever arise is indicative of the folly of the Belfast Agreement. We have heard several interpretations of what the agreement means and what it stands for with regard to the flag. Now we are told that we can fly the flag on certain days. That is very gracious. However, we are not allowed to fly the Union flag on 12 July — that would be offensive. But we are allowed to fly it on other days.
Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom, but that is not because Barbara Brown, Martin McGuinness, John Hume, Gerry Adams or Seamus Mallon tells us. It is part of the United Kingdom because the vast majority of the people of this country decided through the ballot box to be a part of the United Kingdom.
Members have given their views, and we have witnessed the bleating of Republican propagandists even though the majority viewpoint is that this country is part of the United Kingdom and part of Her Majesty’s territory, and its flag is the Union flag. I am proud of that flag, and I am proud of those who served under that flag.
Every day that the Assembly sits the flag should fly upon the Building, giving it the respect it deserves as a part of the democratic process and the parliamentary procedure for this part of the United Kingdom.
I congratulate my Friend and Colleague for his expertise in chairing the Committee, and I trust that we will see the flag flying upon this Building every day that the Assembly sits.

Ms Bairbre de Brún: A Cheann Comhairle. In relation to the motion and Mrs Joan Carson’s comments I must make it clear that my civil servants did not ask me what to do about the flying of the flag. I took the ministerial decision. The only thing that I got from civil servants was a list of flag-flying days. I made the decision, and the suggestion by Mrs Carson that this decision was in any way prompted by civil servants is totally and utterly incorrect.

Mr Billy Armstrong: I welcome the spirit of the Regulations but have some concerns on the detail. The only reason we are debating the issue of flying the Union flag is because of weak Government at Westminster. It is time that the British Government supported its loyal citizens. In Northern Ireland, as in the rest of the United Kingdom, it has been the custom and practice over many years to fly the Union flag on 20 designated days. When devolved Government was restored in June of this year three flag-flying days of the month were ignored by the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and by the Department of Education.
A problem arose because two Ministers, who under the Belfast Agreement accepted Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom, did not accept what they agreed to in the Belfast Agreement. In the Belfast Agreement, under the principle of consent, Northern Ireland remains part of the United Kingdom. The Belfast Agreement states
"the present wish of a majority of the people of Northern Ireland, freely exercised and legitimate, is to maintain the Union and, accordingly, that Northern Ireland’s status as part of the United Kingdom reflects and relies upon that wish".
Like it or not, all the people of Northern Ireland live under United Kingdom laws and should abide by them. The Ministers have accepted their posts in the Northern Ireland Executive as a devolved Administration under the United Kingdom Government and should therefore follow the same customs and practices as the rest of the United Kingdom.
The flying of the flag should be a country’s way of displaying its allegiance and its national identity to the world at large. As such, a flag should be treated with the utmost respect in the way that it is flown and in the civic esteem accorded to it. The flying of the Union flag from Government buildings is a clear expression of the constitutional position. The flying of the Union flag is not held in the esteem that it deserves.
There is no specification of any penalties that would apply if the Union flag were not flown. The Union flag is the ultimate symbol of a constitutional position and it should be respected.
Flying the flag of the Union should not be an issue, but the Regulations have been deemed necessary, and therefore every detail must be examined and regulated so that there is no ambiguity. It is the responsibility of all Ministers who signed up to the Belfast Agreement to ensure that the Union flag flies on all Government buildings, as has been the custom and practice for many years.

Mr Fraser Agnew: It has been an interesting debate. Many of the issues related to the terms of reference, with which the Committee had difficulties, have been mentioned by Members this afternoon. I hope that those issues will be taken on board. Although the Union flag has never been adopted officially as the national flag of the UnitedKingdom, it has, as Dr Birnie said, become so through usage. The Government have already stated that it is the correct flag for use by British citizens. Practice is slightly different at sea, as the Government reserve the Union flag for specific military purposes. In fact, the flag should only be called the Union Jack by the Royal Navy.
We did not get into an argument over the Act of Union. I found out recently that the FlagInstitute has published a draft FlagAct that would confirm in law the Union flag’s status as our national flag. It has laid down specifications and a usage code. The institute is hoping to have the matter brought before Parliament in time for the bicentenary of the UnitedKingdom and the current Union flag in 2001.
MsMorrice said that the Women’s Coalition wanted to widen the debate, turning the Ad Hoc Committee into some kind of permanent Committee. I thank God that it was not made permanent. It was simply not in our remit to extend the debate. The Women’s Coalition may be disappointed at that, but we could not accept that argument.
The principal argument from the Nationalist side — SDLP and SinnFéin — put great emphasis on equality and parity of esteem. I have great difficulty with that. Mr KenRobinson wanted to intervene earlier. I suspect that he wanted to speak about the Union flag not being flown on 12July. It was probably at the back of his mind that the Act of Settlement provided for a society in which there were equal rights for all and special privileges for none. Unfortunately, in Northern Ireland the minority appears to be denying the majority its rights. I believe firmly in equal rights for all and special privileges for none, but the minority must realise that the majority has rights as well, including the right to fly the flag of our country.
Equality and parity of esteem can mean many things. Some people, particularly on the Nationalist side, fail to realise that the Union flag is not a symbol of Unionist domination, or of a desire to put the Micks into the ground as it were — far from it. It is the outward and visible sign that the Unionist community believes in a society that is based firmly on civil and religious liberty. The Union Jack is the outward and visible sign of that society, a society that we have enjoyed for over 300years.

Mr Conor Murphy: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it in order for the Chairperson of a Committee to speak as a representative of his political party? He should speak on behalf of the Committee of which he is Chairperson.
Is MrAgnew speaking as a Member of the United Unionist Assembly Party — or whatever its title may be — or is he speaking as Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee?

Mr Speaker: It certainly is the case that when a Chairman of a Committee, whether it is an Ad Hoc Committee or whether it is a departmental Committee, proposes a motion on behalf of the Committee and or winds up, he is speaking as Chairperson of that Committee.

Mr Peter Robinson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is there not a difficulty for this Chairman, in that this is not a normal Committee report? It is a report bringing a collection of views, albeit views that have been weighted by the degree of support there was in the Committee.

Mr Speaker: I have no doubt that that makes it difficult for the Chairman, but it still would not justify taking one particular element of the report and amplifying on that and not amplifying on the others. However, I do recognise his difficulty.

Mr Fraser Agnew: Even the interventions illustrate the difficulty the Committee had in dealing with this matter.
Today we have certainly heard a wide-ranging debate on the flying of the Union flag. Based on all of the submissions that we have heard today — and all that I have heard — it seems to me all the more amazing that the Committee was able to produce a report at all.
However, we do have a report that was agreed by the Committee, albeit setting out differing views. We have fulfilled the task that was set for us by the Secretary of State, and we can now let him have our views. In closing, I commend the report to the Assembly.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That the report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Flags set up to consider the draft Regulations laid by the Secretary of State under the Flags (Northern Ireland) Order 2000 be submitted to the Secretary of State as a report of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Secondary Education

Mr Tommy Gallagher: I beg to move
That this Assembly notes the recent report ‘The Effects of the Selective System of Secondary Education in Northern Ireland’ and calls for wide-ranging consultations involving all of the education partners about the best way forward for post-primary education.
Devising the best possible system of post-primary education is one of the most important challenges that the Assembly will face. This recently published report should be used now to stimulate debate and to consult widely with all of the educational partners, administrators of education, parents, teachers, school governors and others about what should be the best way forward.
We have had selection for more than 50 years, and it has been a controversial issue. The accuracy and the legitimacy of the tests have been constantly questioned by teachers and others in education. Despite changes in the form at various times, the tests have never been able to accurately predict future educational performance. The use of coaching and practice papers to improve performance has become a widespread and expensive practice. Many families nowadays are prepared to pay £45per week, in some cases more, on coaching. It is not difficult to realise that there are many children in deprived social circumstances who are losing out.
Since it was obvious that the introduction of open enrolment was making an already socially divisive system even more socially divisive, the Department of Education, two years ago, commissioned a review of the selective system of education in Northern Ireland.
The report of the review team contained extensive research, and most here are fairly familiar with the five options set out in it for discussion about a possible way forward. We know too that many of the doubts that parents and professionals have had about selection appear to be borne out by the findings of the report. There is considerable evidence that we administer two unequal systems of post-primary education. The report recognises that we have some strengths in the system, but we all must accept that present arrangements are fundamentally flawed and unable to deliver equality of opportunity. We must therefore use this opportunity to initiate a debate. The debate should include something about the purpose of education and how it should best prepare young people for the twenty-first century.
Before the report was launched we had a consultation paper by the Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment (CCEA) about a new curriculum for schools. The CCEA stresses the importance of developing every child as an individual and as a contributor to society, the economy and the environment. One of the major challenges for us all is how to prepare our young people for what is an increasingly global economy. They need to be, at the very least, as skilled and as competent as their counterparts in other countries. Education for employability requires that all young people be equipped with the basic skills of literacy and numeracy, and with the key skill of information and communication technology (ICT). These are the skills which will be demanded by employers. It is clear from the CCEA consultation document that these are key skills which will have to be imparted at all of the key stages, in education pre-16.
It is clear from the report of the review group — and it is a view that is also being mirrored in reports from the Education and Training Inspectorate — that because of the 11-plus some important areas of study are presently being neglected. Too much time is being spent on English, maths and science at Key Stage 2, and teachers at Key Stage 3 have the task of trying to compensate for earlier omissions. In the section of the report that deals with the impact of selective education on the primary-school sector it says that pupils are not receiving the broad and balanced experience envisaged by the statutory curriculum.
We cannot justify, and we can no longer afford to continue with, a system which, in the interest of a minority of children, narrows and limits the curriculum experiences of all children. The lack of equality of opportunity in education, is a handicap. It is a handicap that carries on into later working life, and it is something that needs to be tackled urgently. Our priority must be to put in place the means whereby all children receive the highest quality of education possible.
We have presently significant strengths, which are mentioned in the report. The high levels of attainment in our grammar, and some of our secondary, schools are examples of that. However, it is also very clear that we have a disproportionate number of low achieving secondary schools.
In our search for an improved form of education we must retain everything that is best about the present system while removing its inconsistencies, inequalities and injustices. We should aim to adapt rather than dismantle the present post-primary system. This can be done so that academic education and vocational education are accorded equal importance.
Five possible options are listed in the report but we might have to look beyond these. It could well be that one single option might not suit all parts of Northern Ireland. That is why it is important that we debate and consult widely about where education is going. If our post-primary schools are prepared to contribute to the debate to find a solution then a better and more comprehensive model of secondary education can be devised to suit the needs of every young person.
The five options give us a starting point. There is the Craigavon model, and I am sure some Members have experience of that and will be better placed to speak about it. We could go for a fully comprehensive model, but we will have to decide what type. We have examples of the strengths and weaknesses of comprehensive systems in Scotland, England and the Republic of Ireland. Our third option suggests a common lower-secondary school with children divided along different routes at higher-secondary level. The fourth option offers different post-primary schools with distinctive academic or vocational routes, but I think everybody would agree that it is important that there is parity of esteem between those routes. The fifth option is for the status quo.
Consultation should not be restricted to those five options. There is agreement between the Education Committee and the Minister that there should be no restrictions or limitations on the options we might consider. Prof Gallagher and Prof Smith shared that view when they met the Committee. I hope we can all agree that we need a wide-ranging consultation with everyone involved in education — where they will have an opportunity to put forward what they believe are the most appropriate models to serve the needs of all our children.
(Madam Deputy Speaker [Ms Morrice] in the Chair)

Ms Jane Morrice: Given the number of Members wanting to take part in this debate, and the fact that we have allocated it two hours, I would advise Members to keep their speeches within the 10-minute time allocation. I call Mr Kennedy, the Chairperson of the Education Committee.

Mr Danny Kennedy: I am grateful for the opportunity to debate this motion. I am a little surprised that the Gallagher Report has been launched. I would certainly have preferred to listen to the representations made, and even heard something from the review body, before the Assembly had taken it in this format. However, I hope the Assembly will have an opportunity later to review progress of this issue.
The report will trigger a wide-ranging debate on the future of education. It will be interesting to see how the different political parties operate within that debate, and I think there will be major differences within parties.
Some will say that I am used to that in respect of other issues, and it will be interesting to see where political parties fall on either side of this great debate. I certainly welcome it, it is a timely opportunity for me as Chairperson of the Assembly’s Education Committee to speak about the launch of the Gallagher Report and its findings.
Looking at the consultation process that is being established by the Department — and I am glad to see that the Minister is in his place — I welcome the opportunity to advise the Assembly on how the Committee views its role in that consultation exercise and to highlight some issues regarding selection that I and my Committee members will be discussing.
My colleague Ken Robinson, a Member of the Education Committee, has regularly described the education debate as opening Pandora’s educational box. That is fairly apt. I am sure that, like everyone else in Northern Ireland, we welcomed the long-awaited publication of this piece of research. There has been an ongoing debate about education selection in Northern Ireland for some considerable time, and the Gallagher Report has ensured that that now takes on an added earnestness, and even a new focus that all previous reviews have lacked. We now have local representatives in this Assembly who are part of that process, and a cross-party Education Committee has been formed. I welcome that. As a result, people now believe, and rightly so, that their locally elected representatives will be making the important decisions that affect their lives and that they will listen very carefully to what all sections will have to say in this major debate.
I consider the report by Gallagher and Smith to be a very well-researched one. I pay tribute to Profs Gallagher and Smith, and I commend them on the manner in which it has been presented.
My Committee received a public presentation of the findings on the afternoon of its launch, which was very welcome and allowed Committee members their first opportunity for questioning the report’s findings. I am sure that I speak for all my Committee’s members when I say that we found this very useful and informative, but I have to say that the contents of the report were not entirely surprising in one respect.
My Committee has some concerns about the structures and the mechanism that the Minister has put in place to take this consultation forward, and we sought clarification from him about this at last week’s Education Committee meeting. We can, I think, all agree on the need for such an emotive and highly sensitive issue to be handled openly and fairly. However, at the Education Committee meeting, members highlighted their concerns regarding the number of bodies being established to take the consultation exercise forward and the relationship between these bodies and the Education Department. The Committee also asked that, in addition to Prof Gallagher, the Minister should consider appointing another local education adviser to the panel of experts that will consider and assist the review body. Perhaps we will hear from the Minister today whether he has given that suggestion any active consideration. We also agreed that even though the report deals with a number of options, any other viable options should be considered.
For example, my party outlined another option: it might be worth investigating the provision of additional grammar schools to offset many of the local problems in areas of the Province.
Concerns have been expressed about the timescale of the consultation exercise. I am particularly concerned about that. I understand that the Minister would like everything to be done by May of next year; I must greet that with scepticism. Organisations like the CCMS have also indicated that the proposed time frame is impractical.
There has been an undertaking that public meetings will be organised alongside those scheduled for educational experts within area boards. Given the importance of this debate, every effort should be made to set up accessible public meetings in all areas of Northern Ireland to ensure that everyone gets an opportunity to express his views and hear how this matter is progressing. Equally, the review body must ensure that information is presented in an easily understood format. To date there has been some confusion about the roles of the various bodies and the seminars for education providers. The review body must put procedures in place to ensure that the consultation process is transparent to, and understood by, everyone.
However, we must make progress with this issue, and it is important that we consider the time frame. Children, teachers, and parents await the outcome of this exercise. The Education Committee will play a leading role in the consultation process. My members and I are now defining precisely what this role will involve, and we hope to invite MrBurns along very soon to outline his plans for the review body. We also plan to consider expert advice on the options outlined in the Gallagher Report to inform our decision on the approach we should take. All political parties will be able to make representations to the review body, but the Education Committee — and I want to stress this — will be able to take a more political focus in this, thanks to its powers as a Committee of the Assembly. We will have ongoing access to the review body, the panel of education revisers and the educational consultative forum.

Ms Jane Morrice: Will the Member please bring his remarks to a close.

Mr Danny Kennedy: My Committee intends to discuss the issues that have been highlighted with leading academics and to commission research on all possible options before publishing its response.
We all welcome this debate, and we must try to ensure that everyone participates and that all views are heard. We must also ensure that we get this right. We have the chance to put in place a system of secondary education which will give all the children in the Province equal access to the quality education that they need. Our educational, social and economic perspectives can then start to grow as we move into the twenty-first century.

Mr Sammy Wilson: This is an extremely important issue which has pre-occupied practitioners within education as well as parents and children. The Assembly must have the opportunity to discuss this issue in full.
Before discussing the DUP’s approach to this question, I emphasize that the motion states that there should be
"wide-ranging consultations involving all of the education partners".
The Minister stated that he had set up a review body, a panel of advisers and various forums. It is significant that the two bodies which he ignored were the Assembly and the Assembly Committee. When the Minister was questioned by the Committee on its role, he said that we could make a submission to Mr Burns and his review body and examine the submissions made on the web site. He also said that we could get a final report from Mr Burns and that we could question him in Committee. We could do only two things of any significance.
As has happened in the past, the Department is seeking to bypass the elected representatives, and I suspect that the Minister is again seeking an outcome which is favourable to himself. We all know his views — the one thing he does not want is democratic scrutiny by the elected body of the results of this review.
I will outline four principles which the DUP believes must be applied to any post-primary system of education. First, we believe that selection is inevitable. There is a prevailing idea that the abolition of the 11-plus will do away with the selection process, but there will have to be some mechanism by which parents decide where their youngsters go when they leave primary school. That can be done on the basis of where you live, as happens in Scotland. Prof Gallagher says of the Scottish system that
"schools in both areas display a similar pattern of social differentiation."
Let us not pretend that neighbourhood comprehensive schools are inclusive, as stated earlier.
Alternatively, pupils can be allocated places on the basis of an interview with headmasters, where they live or what they can afford to pay. These systems of selection would be just as socially divisive, and they are methods which this House has rejected. We conclude, therefore, that some sort of selection is inevitable and that it should be carried out on the basis of what is the best education route for youngsters to take.
The second point is that any system of post-primary education will have to accept that differentiation is necessary or, to use Prof Gallagher’s term, that there have to be distinctive routes.
Not everybody has the same academic or practical aptitudes. We have to recognise that there are differences, and any system of post-primary education ought to accept that. We have a nonsense at present, and this is what has led to secondary schools feeling that they are second-class schools.
At present, we separate people at the age of 11 on academic grounds, and then send them to schools where they follow the same curriculum and end up in the same exam process. Those who have not got through the 11-plus go to secondary schools, and the results in those schools are not as good as those of grammar schools. One would not expect anything different. That explains the low esteem felt by youngsters who go to secondary schools and teachers who teach there.
My third point is that if we are going to have distinctive routes then those routes must have equal status. One must not be seen as being better than another. It has to be made clear that they have different objectives. The Gallagher report points out that there is a division between academic and technical or vocational education in many European countries. People know that they are heading for distinctly different goals, and they respect that the institution they go to has got the ability, the status, and the standing to deliver them to those goals.
If we are going to have equal status, there must be, as Prof Gallagher says, pathways between those different routes. If people find that they have set off on a particular route, and later they decide that it is not the right one, then they can switch. It is not regarded as a step down or a step up — it is simply a sideways movement to a more appropriate system. Gallagher points out that in some schools in Europe, if pupils do not reach a certain level in each year they are held back until they do, or they are asked to review whether they are in the most suitable system, and they move to a different one. We need to look at that. We must ensure that people do not feel that they are in a better system than someone else. There should be equal status for each part of a differentiated system. That would overcome many of the problems associated with the present system.
The fourth thing that we must bear in mind is that we cannot divorce this from the costs involved. Prof Gallagher hints that if we go down the route of simply having neighbourhood schools, or a totally comprehensive system, we could be talking about the closure or amalgamation of up to 60 schools. That is one way in which the costs might be absorbed.
The last time that this exercise was talked about by Lord Melchett, in 1979, the cost was put at £90 million. I have heard people say that it does not matter what the cost is. Their attitude is to get the best system of education and then find the money for it. I have heard unions talk like that. That is nonsense. We have to work within the strict budget that we have. Therefore, we have to ask ourselves what kind of system can be put in place using the present framework.
We have to do two things. We must preserve the high academic achievements that we have in the present system. Gallagher pays tribute to that. In footnote 81, he points out that where selection is based on academic aptitude, the results between Key Stage 3 and Key Stage 4 show that there is value added.
We need to look at a system that does not ignore the fact that there is selection, a system which gives equal status to youngsters, whatever route they choose, and ensures there are options open to them to maximise their potential.

Mr Gerry McHugh: Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. People will welcome the opportunity to hear our views and the current state of play in this important issue. I welcome the review of the present selection system and the consultation period proposed by the Minister. I hope that everyone will have an opportunity to put his views, wherever he lives in the Six Counties, and that all those views will be considered. I hope too that an early decision is taken so that we can proceed.
The Gardiner Report is one barometer that people can go by, and that report concludes that the vast majority of exam results are inaccurate — figures state that around 70% of results are questionable. The highly critical conclusions reached by Prof Gardiner about the 11-plus exam reinforce the widely held view that the 11-plus is a bad exam. It is bad for the child who sits it and for the education system as a whole. The report concludes that the exam should be scrapped. Many people share this strong view.
I have many difficulties with the present selection system. We need to provide choice — choice based on equality and equality of opportunity and not on the elitism of the current system. Branding children failures at 11 years of age is a difficulty for me. Secondary schools have to sweep up and try to reinvigorate children who have lost their confidence and have to try to regain it the following year so they can start to perform at a satisfactory level.
Under the present system primary schools are vying with one another. Principals and parents are involved in a race for academic achievement over and above everything else. Tremendous pressure is placed on children of that age to attain this spurious goal. Many parents do not take account of the fact that their child is not capable of taking and passing the 11-plus, but they pressurise the child because they think it is the right thing to do.
This practice has been in use for 50 years. It creates difficulties for parents and children. This is about education. Education is a basic human right and we should seek to have a high-quality education system which is freely available and accessible to all. These are basic principles. Education should enhance the minds, and enrich and empower youngsters. Education is an investment in the future: a high-quality education system would produce a skilled and enlightened workforce, which could contribute to the economic wealth and well-being of society.
Education can also help to mould attitudes, and there is a need for a high-quality education system that will develop understanding and tolerance in our society. These are important principles, and there has to be a correct method with which to go forward — one that will take those principles to their ultimate conclusion. I am not even sure that the present curriculum is delivering that.
The time is right for us to discuss these issues, to deal with them and to debate them in public, particularly the issue of selection. It is controversial, and the debate on it will be intense and wide-ranging — especially when it goes out to the public. There is a need for informed debate on what is a particularly complex issue. People want change and will be looking for change.
When the results of the review are known we must find the best way forward. There are a number of options suggested, and there are other options which perhaps people could look at as benchmarks in relation to other models which have proved to be successful. Such models are found in European and other countries, and they are delivering in relation to the needs of today’s society — and not just academically. We need options that are based on the needs of education in today’s world. They should be based on equality of opportunity, where all remain equal from the start of their education through to the finish. They should produce children who are able to face the world outside and who not only have academic skills, but also have the interpersonal skills that are essential for a person to be able to handle situations and to reach full potential at all levels. That is where we need to get to with this debate, and I think that we will get there.

Mrs Eileen Bell: I am one of the success stories of the 11-plus. I would not be here today if I had not passed it, but I am wondering whether "success" was the right word to use. This motion is timely, and we should state loudly and clearly that consultation on this important issue should be as wide, comprehensive and effective as possible. I will concentrate on the key point of the motion, which is consultation. That is the right message to be giving to the Minister and to the review body. If the consultation process is right then the result should be right.
The findings of this report will be far reaching, and its impact on future generations will be massive and life forming. We must be very careful therefore about our final decisions. We must ensure that all interested parties — from teachers to parents — are adequately consulted so that, as far as possible, the most satisfactory outcome is achieved for all the pupils that it will affect.
The Gallagher Report, after all the years of emotional and subjective concern, gives us a focus on this issue. It did not tell us anything really new, but it has provided the basis for further consideration of the five options and others. We must look closely at these over the coming months, and also the submissions which will undoubtedly come from all areas and levels of the existing structures. We can but hope that concentration on the issues identified by Prof Gallagher will lead to the correct conclusions.
I say again that this motion is extremely timely, because of the press release which outlined the first stages of the consultation and gave way to some confusion. The meetings that have been planned so far, according that press release, are to be by invitation only for school principals and representatives of educational and related organisations. We asked the Minister about this at a meeting of the Education Committee and he said that this was only for the schools. However, it did not send out the right message, and I think that he knows that now.
We are told that public meetings will be held by the review body when it sets up its programme. I await the details of these meetings with great interest. I trust that they will be both many and widespread and that they will be held in the very near future.
Apart from the views of experts in education, we all know that there are a large number of parents with seven-, eight- and nine-year-old children who are fervently hoping that they, and their children, will not have to deal with the stresses that are currently being endured by P5 and P6 pupils and their families. These parents will want not only to attend the meetings but also to have their say, to have their questions answered and to have their heartfelt concerns met. These are the people who need to be listened to and to be reassured that whatever option is finally chosen it is the best way forward for their children — indeed, all the children of Northern Ireland.
The Minister has said that it is important that we have an informed debate on the report, and I totally agree, especially on the key issues that are raised in the report — the sense of failure; the severe blow to self-esteem; the long tail of low achievers; the divisiveness of the grammar versus secondary systems; and the vastly detrimental impact that preparation for the transfer test currently has on primary schools.
All of us in the education field are well aware of these issues and have repeatedly seen their effect on schools. Parents have even gone to the extreme lengths of preventing their children from taking the test. We must consider and acknowledge this strength of feeling in our considerations.
The Education Committee will be taking these key issues very seriously indeed, looking at the options outlined in the report as well as others. The Alliance Party will also be looking closely at the record of all-ability integrated schools since they will show us how a modern comprehensive system might look. We must take the review seriously as its findings and eventual conclusions will substantially change the future of post-primary education and will improve the situation and potential of all of our young people in their future lives.
The Gallagher Report clearly shows the universally accepted disadvantages of the current education and examination systems caused mostly by the 11-plus exam with its weaknesses. I agree with Mr Sammy Wilson that selection may still be regarded as necessary or inevitable, but this must be done in the best interests of each child, whatever its age.
The Minister also said
"Everyone with a view on this issue must be given an opportunity to express it."
I am sure that all sections of the community will approach this in a constructive way. It must be seen to be an all-inclusive real consultation. That means one that is not predetermined at any stage by experts, and one that will ensure that we get the education system that society, the economy, and most of all, our children deserve. Whatever we do with this system will be repeated across the whole of the education process for each child.
Finally, it goes without saying that our current system, which brands a large number of our future citizens as failures when they have lived, at most, one sixth of their lives, must be radically changed. We do not want change for change’s sake, rather we want change for the sake of improvement. I support the motion.

Mr Billy Hutchinson: When I saw this motion I wondered what it was about for the report has been delivered, and it is quite clear what needs to happen. It might have been better to have this debate after the Education Committee had considered the report. However, now that it is taking place there are a number of points that I wish to make.
First of all, I want to commend the report. MrGallagher and Mr Smith have done what was asked of them by the Department of Education. They have met the terms of reference and produced clear evidence of the effects of selection. They have also given alternatives for consideration.
I want to talk for a couple of minutes on the effects of the 11-plus. There has been a great deal of talk about that. Do any of us realise how badly this reflects on working-class areas? I am really concerned. This is not meant to be a sectarian comment, but I would like to ask the rest of my Unionist Colleagues if they have looked at the facts and figures on 11-plus passes in Protestant working-class areas and compared them with those in Catholic working-class areas. Catholics have a better pass rate; it is not all that much higher but is considerably lower than the national average. We need to focus on that. We say that we want to give people opportunity, but we are not giving them much of an opportunity.
In the area where I live and went to school, a number of years ago, people from the school I attended went to Queen’s and to universities across the water, but nobody can do an A level in that school now. Is anybody going to tell me that Protestants have become stupid, or is there something wrong?
We need to look at the system. In many ways there has been a loss of educational value in the Protestant community. Perhaps that is to do with tradition; it may be due to the Protestant work ethic or to the fact that we have a different system now. In the past, people could get jobs in the shipyard, serve their time and get further education on day release and one night at school. We really need to take this seriously and look at how it affects working-class people.
We also need to examine the effect it is having on primary school teachers. While they are preparing children for the selection process, they are neglecting the remainder of the curriculum. What effect does that have on the other children?
We must also look at the whole notion that this system is fair. In my opinion, it is an accident of birth that someone can afford to pay for children to have a tutor. In other areas people cannot do that. I do not suggest that people should be prevented, but we need to look at this. Some people can afford a tutor; others cannot.
Children who attend secondary schools go to those schools with low self-esteem and lacking in confidence. Most of us could look around our constituencies and identify at least one secondary school that is perceived as a dumping ground. No parents want to send their children there. If they do they say "Johnny" — or "Jane" — "is not going to do well anyway, so what is the point?". That is an indictment of the education system.
Look at some of the children who are leaving school at age 16 with NVQs. In my constituency of North Belfast they cannot get an NVQ level 3 — nobody can do level 3 in North Belfast. A young person has to go out of the area to do one. The difficulty is that all children at the age of 16 can go on to Jobskills and other schemes through NVQ level 1 but not through level 2. They are the children coming out of the secondary schools. Is that not about self-esteem and confidence?
My Colleague Mr Sammy Wilson said that all children are not academically bright. I accept that. I do not accept an education system that does not produce a rounded child. We need to ensure that all our children reach their full potential. Whether that is about achieving academic success or vocational success, we need to make sure it happens.
What about the confidence and self-esteem of the teachers who have to teach in these secondary schools? That is on the wane. No matter how well they teach, they will never achieve the same success as grammar schools do, and that is as a result of the system. That is not fair on teachers, and we should look at how we can change that. Our taxes go towards putting teachers through teacher training school, and perhaps each of them should be made to spend at least three years in a secondary school in a disadvantaged area before being allowed to teach in a grammar school.
Those are things we need to look at. After all, we are the people who put them through the system to become teachers. We train them to be teachers. We spend a lot of money on the education system they go through before they become teachers. In my opinion — not that of my party — it might be better if we did not have grammar schools at all. That is another story for another day.
In the UK as a whole we deliver the worst education to low-income families. If people are not in the top 20% in Northern Ireland, they are not going to do well. The other 80% are out there somewhere, waiting about, down at the bottom. They are not going to do anything. They will just go through school. Some of them will come out unable to read and write. That is a difficulty. If people are in the top 20%, they are going to do very well, they are going to end up at university and get the best jobs. Low-income families do not get that chance. We need to ask ourselves why we are the worst in the UK as far as low-income families’ education is concerned.
The hardest part of this debate is not proving that the present system fails but finding a suitable alternative. We have to consider change in order to pursue a policy that will tackle social inequality. We should create a system that delivers equality of opportunity, equality of access to educational resources, equality of access to good teaching, and a safe and secure educational environment. We should also look at equality of respect for all pupils. We can talk about grammar schools or the 11-plus, but unless we focus on a system that delivers all those things in terms of equality, we are wasting our time. If we achieve that, then perhaps low-income families will be a lot better off in terms of education.

Prof Monica McWilliams: This is a timely debate. I heard members of the Education Committee saying that we should have waited until the Education Committee had had a look at the report before coming to the Floor of the Assembly. People outside do not understand our structures. All they know is that Tony Gallagher and Alan Smith have produced a report. They heard the Minister on television talking about it and wondered what the Assembly was doing. It is good to have it here in the Assembly, with us debating it and taking note of it, and also having the Committee’s opinion on it. There is no doubt that it will return here again.
I told the Minister on the day the report was launched that I was a little disappointed. I am sure it was not the fault of Tony Gallagher and Alan Smith that it took so long for the report to finally arrive with us. I know there were reasons for that, and indeed the terms of reference were extended. My major concern is that it seems that we have put this decision off for 40 years. Now that we have an opportunity to look at it, we should not delay. I am aware that the Minister said that the review he has established will be complete by May. I hope that it will not be pushed a further six months down the line. I am reassured that the Minister said that that will not be the case. By the end of May we should have the view of that body.
Nonetheless, the major points we need to make come from our constituents and from public meetings. This report speaks to two things. It asks what the purpose of education is, and it says that we have decisions to make about the structure of our education system. Do we want to reinforce social divisions, to make one group of elites and another of losers? Do we continue to have a limited concept of intelligence and punish the assumed lack of it? Punishing is what we do. I do not want to hear any more people say "I did not pass the 11-plus, but …". Neither do I want to hear people saying that they would not be where they are if it were not for the 11-plus.
It is not right to say these things. This is the only test that 11-year-old children will have to take and, if they fail, they cannot resit. My children completed the test recently. The incumbent trauma is exaggerated; these children are told that their entire life depends on this test from primary six onwards, by teachers under the stress of working in an education system based on selection. There is a hothouse effect for children whose parents have extra money, as when they come home from school, they have extra tuition. There is stress in the home and in the school. Throughout the summer holidays, stress builds up as children are repeatedly made to study practice questions. Having put my own children through this process, it is not something I want for anyone else’s children. However, there is currently very little choice in whether children take the test.
Do we want to continue dividing society like this? In a society that is bitterly divided by religion and national identity, we should not make further divisions according to class and social standing, or within families — children in the same family may end up in different schools. We have the opportunity to address these problems.
I believe that, through signing the Good Friday Agreement, we will create opportunities for the future. This is an area for opportunity which we can focus on. The transfer test is the very embodiment of division in our society.
A child will not be educated for life by studying for this transfer test, as it is so limited that it loses sight of the broader purpose of education. On the day the report was launched, readers asked if its terms of reference were academic achievement and the future of the economy. The review body’s terms of reference must also include social and political outcomes. When I studied the terms of reference for the findings of this report, I was glad to see that a number of useful issues were highlighted.
Recently, there was a public meeting in Stormont on the issue of the transfer test, attended by the Chairperson of the Education Committee. Questions were asked by the public, including teachers, parents, trade unions and advisory bodies. Some of these questions were worrying: how would it affect the redeployment of teachers in schools and the physical infrastructure of schools? Would it have fitness for purpose? These reservations indicate that the current system is unfit.
If the system is to be more comprehensive, will it be fully comprehensive, or will it be selectively comprehensive? If the latter applies, what are known as "sink classes" will exist alongside the upper classes.
At the moment, there is a notion that some children are at better schools than others. I want the best for my children and for others in this country. I also want the best schools. I do not want us to go on talking like this any more. It is almost like a market system where people want to send their children to the "best" school. This idea has infiltrated people’s minds. Otherwise, why would parents put their children through extra jumps and hurdles to get them into these schools?
What sort of in-school support will be available for special needs children in a new, restructured system? Obviously, there will be children with different abilities and different educational needs; the restructuring should address that. I compliment the Minister for establishing a review body, a local education forum and an advisory body. The three of them sit well together and provide a means of moving forward. I hope that they will all report at the same time.
Our public meeting on the transfer test produced a proposal for a parent/teacher council; Northern Ireland does not have such a council at present. The system is mainly led by teachers and those with a special interest in servicing the education system. Consumers, particularly parents, do not have much input. The representative of the parent/teacher council addressed the meeting, and what she said was very effective.
A delegate from Scotland told the meeting that, as a consequence of the restructuring that took place there in 1965, they have achieved an above-average level of attainment, lower levels of inequality and social segregation and less variation between schools. All of that is borne out by research. The Gallagher report shows that the benefit to a child of a grammar school education is 16 GCSE points.
For all those reasons, I call upon the Minister to address the way forward as comprehensively as possible and commend the findings of the Gallagher and Smith Report. We want a system that gives parity of esteem and status to a wide range of skills, not just the current little bit of maths, English and science. We want a much more comprehensive system—comprehensive in ethos, population and curriculum and more integrated, in terms of gender, class, culture, ethnicity and, most important of all, religion and ability. The final result will be a fairer distribution of resources and capital investment, and better targeting of social need. We should be able to put our hands on our hearts and say that we have enhanced equality and diversity in this country, not restricted it.

Ms Jane Morrice: There are more names on the list than there is time for, especially if everybody speaks for ten minutes. If Members would reduce that further, others might appreciate it.

Mr Ken Robinson: The Gallagher report is particularly timely, and I welcome it. However, I have reservations about the timing of the debate. I would have preferred it if the public debate had been well under way before the Assembly met to discuss these matters. The issue is so important to the community’s future. I noticed the great crowd in the Public Gallery who came to hear the deliberations, and the attendance in the Chamber. That reinforces my view that this was not the best time to bring the matter forward.
I wanted to start off on a slightly different tack, but I must say that it sounded as if Ms McWilliams was sending her little wish list up the chimney. The Minister has never struck me as being a Santa Claus lookalike.
Perhaps more than most Members, I have seen the system from several sides. Like Mrs Eileen Bell, I went through the system when it was known as "the qualifying". I sat an examination that I knew little about in a strange school with strange teachers supervising. I went back one day and received an letter saying that I had to go to a grammar school — whatever that might be. I was totally oblivious to all those things, because, in my house, it was a natural progression.
I was concerned to hear about all the stress, the work done during the summer holidays and the use of tutors — all emotive things. That is one of the fundamental problems with the transfer procedure.
There are faults in the procedure itself but they are hyped up, elaborated on and magnified by events that happen outside the school. I want to come back to those events later on.
I hate to hear the word "fail". I hate to use it, and I have never used it professionally or in my home. In my family, two of us went to grammar schools, and one did not. In my own family, two of my sons went to grammar schools, and one did not.
The school that I first worked in as a principal, was a rural school and the sort of school that BarryMcElduff and GerryMcHugh on the opposite Bench would recognise. The children were treated equally, and those people who wanted children to go on a certain course made sacrifices to get them into that. But we did not view those children who went on a different course as "failures".
I can remember once pleading with parents who wanted to put their hands in their pockets to buy a grammar-school place and telling them very seriously that they would not be doing their child a favour. Their child would go on to blossom, and his talents would be expanded in another setting. I am delighted to say that those parents listened to me.
Mr Billy Hutchinson is here, and he has heard me speak on this in other places. I was a principal on the ShankillRoad, and I know what it is like to try to get people through the 11-plus on the ShankillRoad. MrHutchinson knows the reasons, which we will not go into now, for my feeling that the ShankillRoad and other working-class districts have changed over the last 20 to 30years. There is a problem there that must be addressed, but there are very specific reasons for that situation’s having moved on there.
I finished off in one of the leafy suburban schools — one of the "good schools" that were being referred to earlier. Parents viewed those schools as good for very specific reasons. We did not have a label outside the school saying "This is a good school. Please come in." We were responding to customer demand. They may have been buying the wrong goods — and we can come back to that later — but those are the situations that I have found myself in both professionally and personally.
I have no axe to grind in this. I want to hear as full a debate as possible, but I do not want to hear emotive words used. I noticed that there was a public meeting held in this Building, and I believe that it was a seminar and that it was perhaps held before the Gallagher Report was launched. Some putting the cart before the horse has been going on. Let us slow down, look at the real problems and see if we can come up with a proper, lasting and equitable solution.
They say that a week is a long time in politics — then surely 50years is a very long time in educational terms. If you add in the frequent changes in the other facets of education that have taken place over the last five to tenyears, the right and proper thing to do is stop and study this in depth.
I draw Members’ attention to the title of the Gallagher Report. It is to study
"The effects of the selective system of secondary education in Northern Ireland."
I suggest that we cannot look at that in a vacuum. Other things impinge on that, some of which I believe Tony Gallagher came across as he developed his research. Other things still lie out there, and perhaps I can highlight some of them today.
I would like to flag up some of the pitfalls, which lie before us. This debate must focus on the issues in a constructive and objective manner. We will not do them justice unless it does. We will not serve our children or society at large properly if we allow the discussion to degenerate into an emotional diatribe between two opposing camps. We know that there are vested interests, but we do not want this to become a slanging match.
The Gallagher Report helps us to pause and look at the current situation, warts and all. There are faults in the system, but let us identify why the faults are there and see if we can cure some of them, if not all of them.
The public perception — and the Gallagher Report seems to reinforce this — is that we have a grammar-school system which is referred to as "successful", and, as a result, we currently have about 35% of our transferring pupils being encouraged to take that route at secondary level. In some quarters, to which I have referred already, the other 65% of pupils are viewed as "failures" being channelled into an inferior sector. I strongly disagree with that view. As a parent, and as a former governor of a secondary school for eight years, I know the quality of education and the commitment of the staff that is available within the majority of such schools.
What I cannot ignore, what the Assembly cannot ignore and what wider society cannot ignore is the fact that a significant percentage of pupils leave formal education after 11years without qualifications and — and perhaps this is even more serious — with impaired levels of literacy and numeracy.
That fact alone should focus all of our attention during this prolonged period of consultation, for it begs the question as to whether these children commenced the process of failure at the 11-plus stage.

Mr David Ervine: I may be wrong, but there seems to be a contradiction in terms here. The Member cannot say that 65% are being branded as failures and then go on to explain why they are failures.

Mr Ken Robinson: I did not say that they were failures; I said that some people look upon them as failures. I certainly do not look upon them as failures.
Did these children commence the process of failure at the 11-plus stage, or is there a more fundamental flaw in our educational system? Is it a flaw that Gallagher was never required to explore? Nevertheless, it may be something that should inform our deliberations.
We also need to study carefully the methods of teaching and learning which provide boys and girls with the most successful outcomes. Boys and girls have different ways of learning. Teachers will tell one that that is naturally so, but there is research available which could help us identify the different methods by which either a boy or a girl could be more successful in their learning outcomes.
We also need to identify the social settings which either enhance or inhibit access to education and educational success. Billy Hutchinson referred to some of the problems that currently exist in parts of Belfast. There are reasons for these problems; we must identify those reasons and find solutions to them.
There are other instances where children who are faced with the same difficulties appear to succeed. What is making them succeed? Is it the quality of teaching? Is it the ethos in the home? Is it their peer group? Let us develop those areas and see what we come up with.

Prof Monica McWilliams: The Member talks about the quality of teaching, the ethos in the home and the infrastructure in the wider social society. Can he prioritise those factors or tell the House which of them is the major cause of the problem. Members may remember that I was once criticised for helping my children write a letter to Santa Claus.

Ms Jane Morrice: I ask the Member to be brief. He has 30 seconds left.

Mr Ken Robinson: I have been generous to a fault, as Members are aware.

Mr Jim Wells: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Mr Robinson has given way, and some valuable points have been raised, but when the Member gave way the clock did not stop. I think that that will deter other Members from giving way. In this type of debate there should be the flexibility to take interventions.

Ms Jane Morrice: I am aware of the time limitations, but I am also aware of the number of people who want to speak in this debate. I asked Members beforehand to reduce their speeches to being less than 10 minutes.

Mr Ken Robinson: In response to Ms McWilliams’ question, it is a combination of all the factors I mentioned. We also need to address the issue of when young people should be introduced to a formal education system. Our continental cousins leave that until later, and young people there appear to be equally as successful at the age of 11, 14, 16, or whatever.
I welcome the completion of the Gallagher Report and look forward to a rational debate informed in part by the report’s contents. I trust that those who have an immediate and, to some degree, a vested interest in the current secondary arrangements will look beyond those and ensure that future arrangements, whatever they are, take into account the totality of our current education framework. We can no longer afford to compartmentalise our system from pre-school to primary to secondary, and so on.

Ms Jane Morrice: The Member’s time is up.

Mr Ken Robinson: You were generous with the Chairman, Madam Deputy Speaker. He was allowed to speak for an extra minute. I have been generous to other Members, and I have almost finished.

Ms Jane Morrice: Mr Robinson, your time is up.

Ms Patricia Lewsley: Education is a vital element in society, coming close in importance to food and shelter. It is also a basic human right.
I do not need to tell Members about the key role which education plays in the development of young members of society, second in influence only to the family and the values that are taught there. Our aim should be to encourage children to develop their full potential in academic, sporting, vocational, musical, artistic or other abilities, and to cope with whatever limitations or difficulties they may encounter.
We need to prepare the child to play a full role in society and in the economy as a responsible, confident participant, aware of his or her rights and responsibilities and those of others. We need to equip children with the skills necessary to gain employment and live as independently as possible, and not to brand them as failures at the tender age of 11. My party has been opposed to the 11-plus for many years on the grounds that it is unfair, divisive, ineffective and damaging. It is incompatible with the principles I previously mentioned, to brand a majority of children as failures and damage their self-esteem, often with lasting effects. As MsMcWilliams has already mentioned, it is the only examination where there is no opportunity to resit, unlike GCSEs, NVQs or A levels.
It is not just about exams. For many children the primary seven year is very traumatic. They sit the exam in November and have to wait until February for the results. Then they have another wait to find out if they have been accepted at the school of their choice. Many have to wait for weeks after that to find out which school they can go to. Employing tutors outside school hours to coach children, particularly in the 11-plus, adds to the pressure the child already feels in taking the test. It also puts a financial strain on families on low incomes or on benefits, who cannot afford to take this measure to give their child a better chance of success in the exam. It creates a two-tier system.
We should have equality of opportunity, which will tackle the issues of underachievement, rural schools, nursery education, special needs, et cetera. We must also ensure that we target social need. We need research and wide-ranging consultation on how to develop a fairer system of transfer to second-level education that takes into account the child’s abilities and reflects the child’s needs and parental choice. These consultations should ensure that everyone, from the users to the people who deliver the education services, has input into that process. The review body will have a vital role to play on consultation. I hope that that will enable it to make well-informed recommendations at the end. While this debate focuses particularly on the 11-plus, it cannot be seen in isolation. There needs to be a complete overview of the education system from pre-nursery through to third-level education.
We need second-level education that gives the same weight to a vocational route as an academic route. We have become a league table-driven society geared too much towards academia, thus showing that where we have a high level of excellence we also have a very high level of underachievement. We have the opportunity now to develop a system of education that is second to none. We need to move away from perpetual testing to perpetual teaching. We need to take up the challenge now to ensure equity for the children of the future. I support the motion.

Mr Jim Wells: I am somewhat concerned about the way this debate is going. It seems to be a debate between the attractions of the selective system that we have at the minute, namely the 11-plus, and some system of comprehensive education where there is no selection. Members may be surprised to hear this from a member of the Democratic Unionist Party, but there is an alternative. There is an alternative that achieves excellent results and is almost universally popular with parents, many of whom opt in to the system, and which guarantees that a much higher proportion of children enter grammar school education. That system is known as the Dickson plan. I have first-hand experience of the Dickson plan, as do my children and my wife. It is a model that the Assembly should look at very seriously.
For the benefit of Members who do not know a lot about the Dickson plan, let me explain what happens. Under the Dickson plan, which operates in Craigavon, there is no selection at age 11. All children move from primary schools straight into what are called junior high schools. The children spend three years in the junior high, and at the end of the third year certain children go on to grammar school while others go on to the senior high.
But the major difference between that system and the 11-plus is that the children are not examined on the basis of two two-hour papers. I am very worried to find myself agreeing with MsMonicaMcWilliams this evening: it is absolutely brutal to decide a child’s future on the basis of two two-hour papers. We should not inflict that on any of our children. My two are going to Dickson plan schools, and while their friends in the neighbouring villages are cramming their minds with all the options that they might encounter in the 11-plus exam, my children are wondering what all the fuss is about. They are simply enjoying their education. We should consign the 11-plus system to the dustbin. I simply cannot see how it is fair that a child’s entire future should be determined at that age.
The Dickson plan does not judge children on the basis of two or three exams. It involves at least ten exams combined with a strong element of continuous assessment from the pupil’s first year. Therefore any child who has ability and who genuinely wants a grammar school education has an excellent opportunity to receive one. The proof of the Dickson plan pudding is in the eating. Parents whose children live in Craigavon have the choice to opt out. They can send their children to Banbridge, Lisburn or Dungannon, and during the first stages of the implementation of the Dickson plan in the late ’60s, many parents did that. They took their children out of Craigavon and they sent them to Friends School or to Wallace High School in Lisburn, or to St Catherine’s College in Armagh, in order to avoid the system. Slowly but surely, though, the penny began to drop and parents realised that the Dickson plan was much fairer. It guaranteed a grammar school education for far more children, and its results were excellent. Bit by bit, more children chose the system to the extent that now over 95% of the parents who have that choice in the Craigavon area opt for the Dickson plan. Indeed, in peripheral areas, such as Waringstown, Moira and Moy, children are actually sent in to the Dickson area from outlying areas to enjoy the benefits of that particular plan.
What worries me about the Gallagher Report is that it seems to have simply overlooked the benefits of that particular option. Gallagher states that pupils who were not selected at age 14 years were not as well served by the system. That one line seems to dismiss the undoubted benefits of this option. Surely the solution is not to throw the baby out with the bath water by abolishing a universally popular system but to improve the standard of education for those at the senior highs.
Dickson still involves an element of selection. But if one accepts that there has to be selection somewhere along the line, this is the most equitable approach. It is perhaps no coincidence that many of the schools under the Dickson plan have featured at the top of league tables for academic performance. Some Members will say that those tables mean very little, and I accept that they are open to interpretation, but it is clear that schools under the Dickson plan are not at a disadvantage. Because of the way in which Dickson is modelled, more children have the opportunity to go to a grammar school and to achieve their academic optimum.
I urge the Chairman of the Education Committee, and perhaps some of its members, to go to some of those schools, and to see what is going on. First, he will find that they are all packed. Lurgan Junior High, for instance, has had it highest enrolment ever this year. Lurgan College is bursting at the seams, as is St Michael’s, Lurgan. All these schools are bucking the trend of declining enrolment elsewhere, because so many parents want their children to be educated under the Dickson system.
While one may hear people like Mr Billy Hutchinson and Ms McWilliams complaining about the systems in their areas, one will not hear those complaints where people are being educated under the Dickson plan. One will not hear those complaints in Craigavon. People are content.
Finally, any system that produced Stephen Grimason and Noel McAdam, amongst many others, cannot be all bad.

Mr Danny Kennedy: I was very interested in what the Member said up until his final paragraph — and some of the comparisons he was putting forward. Would he not accept that there is a potential problem in the cost of the Dickson plan and in extending it to other parts of Northern Ireland? In a peculiar sense, it has worked very well, and I accept that because I have some experience of it. It has worked very well in Craigavon, but it may not transfer to other parts of Northern Ireland.

Mr Jim Wells: The hon Member makes a very valid point. At the very least, TonyGallagher should have costed that option and looked to see whether it was viable to cover all of Northern Ireland.
What worries me is that a scheme, which seems so successful and popular, has been bypassed and simply brushed aside by means of two lines in his report. I do not think that they have looked at the Dickson plan carefully enough. Frankly, the only people who can really speak about the plan with authority are those who have either gone through the system or whose children are presently in it. Those people have first hand experience of the system. I do not think that Gallagher spent enough time in Craigavon talking to parents and teachers to find out what makes the Dickson plan work so well.
Let us get away from the idea that there are only two options — the full comprehensive education system and the present system. There is a another system that is fair, more popular, and which I believe leads to much better education for our children. From my experience we could do a lot worse than adopt it for this Province.

Mr Barry McElduff: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I support the tenor and spirit of the motion. The effects of the selection system for secondary education in the Six Counties, and the future provision of an appropriate system of education aimed at cherishing all of the children equally, challenges each of us intellectually. We are talking about all children, not just those of higher ability or social advantage.
I believe that, collectively, we possess the necessary genius and ability to design a suitable system of post-primary education that will serve to replace the transfer test once and for all. I am mindful of the damage that the present system has inflicted and I join with others in commending Prof Gallagher who has done a tremendous service to us by producing a comprehensive volume of important research identifying the issues and some, but not all, alternative models.
As Gaeilge, very briefly, tacaím le spiorad agus le brí an rúin. Is cóir go ndéanfaí tuairisc an Ollaimh Gallagher a phlé i gcruinniú iomlán den Tionól. Creidim go tréan go gcaithfidh rannpháirtíocht iomlán a bheith ag an phobal sa díospóireacht seo. Leoga, tá sé fíorthábhachtach má táimid le teacht ar chóras oideachais a thugann a gceart agus a gcothrom do iomlán ár gcuid bpáistí, chan amháin dóibh sin a bhfuil ardéirim nó buntáiste sóisialta acu.
Ón tús, ba mhaith liom moladh leis an Ollamh Gallagher agus leis an Ollamh Smith. Rinne siad taighde mór a chuideoidh le nádúr agus le cúrsa ár n-oideachais iarbhunscoile a mhúnlú sa todhchaí.
I want to commend Mr Tommy Gallagher, who tabled the motion. I think it is appropriate that the issue should be widened at this stage to include Members not on the Education Committee. After all, this is the single most important issue faced by educational providers and policy makers for many decades. I appreciate the earliness of the debate, but I still think that we will revisit it in plenary format in the future.
In recognising this, it behoves all of us to get it right, and we owe it to future generations of school children to do so. I am certain that there is a tremendous appetite out there for people to become involved. There is no doubt about that.
At a recent ceremony in Omagh to mark the amalgamation of schools into the SacredHeart College, a principal talked to me about the appetite of people to have their voices heard. It is appropriate that we call for parents, pupils, teachers, employers and the business, community and voluntary sectors to become involved — anyone with an interest in the matter.
The Gallagher Report has identified many key issues — what has become known as the long tail of relatively low-achieving schools which sit alongside high-achieving schools, and the low self-esteem of pupils who do not secure a grammar school place. The distortion of the curriculum has been referred to by other Members. The displacement of key areas of the curriculum has contributed to a situation where, for example, creative writing is underdeveloped and there is tremendous pressure on pupils and teachers to prepare, in a narrow curricular sense, for the 11-plus. This denies pupils a holistic educational experience, or a broad and balanced curriculum, if that is a better definition. The sense of failure is unbearable for 11-year-old children and their families. I have often heard young ones talk about it as "the worst day of my life". Teachers at secondary schools are often left to their own devices to rebuild pupils’ self-confidence.
It is appropriate to acknowledge the valuable work of teachers, not least in the secondary sector where teaching styles and methods have to accommodate children across a wide spectrum of ability level, which is not necessarily replicated in grammar schools. However, I want to pay tribute to all teachers.
The inability of many families to afford £15 per hour coaching sessions has shown us that performance is influenced by social advantage, or disadvantage, and is evidence of a system which is inherently fuelling inequality. The pressure on primary school teachers to teach —

Mr Ken Robinson: Does the Member agree that there is not only social disadvantage in the ability of some parents to pay £15 per hour for tutoring but also an inherent danger that an independent sector may grow unless we get the balance of this new system absolutely correct?

Mr Barry McElduff: That is absolutely right. It is skewed in the manner outlined by MrRobinson.
There is pressure on primary school teachers to teach a differentiated curriculum to two sets of pupils in the same class — those who are entering the exam and those who are opting out.
Rather predictably, the Irish language equips us with a philosophy for education. The word "oideachas" means education or foster parenting, "oide" being the foster parent or teacher, and the phrase "mol an óige agus tiocfaidh sí" means praise the young people and they will develop. This emphasis and philosophy takes us away from the pressure of academic success, which MsLewsley mentioned earlier when discussing recognising pupils’ inclinations towards other areas such as sport and music. I would include woodwork as another example.
Regarding the format of the consultation exercise that lies ahead, there is a key distinction between the dissemination seminars being organised in-house by the education and library boards for school principals and key practitioners and those being organised for the public. These public meetings will be crucial, and I am concerned that the education and library board areas believe that two will be sufficient. The Western Education and Library Board area, for example, contains rather different entities — Fermanagh, Strabane, Omagh and Derry. There need to be at least five public meeting exercises held in that board area.
The Education Committee envisages a central role for the Assembly, and it is up to the Minister, and the review body, to help facilitate us in this exercise. It is up to us as a Committee to assert ourselves and to impose ourselves on the debate. Other models need to be examined closely, and MrWells made a very valuable contribution in outlining the Craigavon model. That should be looked at formally by the Education Committee.
The system of education in the Twenty-six Counties should be looked at. I was disappointed that the Gallagher Report did not point us in that direction for some lessons.
Some of Mr Sammy Wilson’s criticisms appear to be motivated by his desire to be seen as a Rottweiler at the heels of the Minister at all stages, irrespective of merit.

Mr David Ervine: He is looking for a lamp-post.

Mr Barry McElduff: I will not comment on that. For the purposes of Hansard, let me point out that I was prompted by Mr Ervine.
Will the Minister reaffirm the commitment to actively relate to the Committee? I give the Minister credit — not just because he is a party Colleague — for grasping this nettle, and I look forward to our moving into the debate. It will be comprehensive and passionate. We must all focus on emerging with a system of education that cherishes all children equally.
Mar fhocal scoir. Is mithid dúinn uilig ár n-éirim agus ár gcruthaitheacht chomhchoitianta a úsáid le córas oideachais a dhearadh a rachas chun sochair dár gcuid páistí uilig agus a chuirfeas ár gcuid páistí uilig ar comhchéim.

Ms Jane Morrice: For those who could not get into the debate, I apologise for the shortage of time. I call the Minister of Education.

Mr Martin McGuinness: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I am grateful to Mr Gallagher for proposing the motion on this most important topic. I am also grateful for the contributions of other Members to the debate. It is true that the debate could have been better attended. Those Members who did attend have done themselves proud. Their contributions were very impressive. This was one of the finest, most positive and most constructive debates that there has been in this Assembly, and all parties, without exception, should take credit for that.
I would like to place on record my appreciation to Prof Tony Gallagher, Prof Alan Smith and the 18 or so members of their research team for their excellent and comprehensive report on the effects of the selective system of education. They have done us all a great public service.
Many findings in the report are familiar to us all, and that was evident from many of the contributions. Indeed, after 50 years of the current arrangements it would be surprising if they were not. However, the unique contribution made by the report lies in the firm and sound research base that it provides for considering the way forward.
We must focus on the future. The pace and extent of technological change and the rising expectations of our people demand that we do so. The time is right to consider whether our current education system helps all our children to fulfil their potential and equips them adequately for life in the twenty-first century.
I suggest that the evidence in this report shows that while some children do exceedingly well in the present system, many do not. There are four key findings in the report which support this view. First, there is the long tail of low achieving schools alongside the many high achieving ones. The research suggests that this polarity in achievement may be an inevitable consequence of the selective system.
Secondly, there is the significant boost to attainment resulting from attendance at a grammar school and the under-representation of children from socially disadvantaged backgrounds in those schools.
Thirdly, there is the detrimental impact which preparation for the transfer test has in primary schools. This is most evident in the narrowing of the Key Stage 2 curriculum.
Fourthly, a feature of the selective system — which is of great concern to me and to most parents — is the sense of failure and the huge blow to self-esteem felt by those who do not obtain a grammar school place. This group constitutes the majority of our children.
This report is a key document, and it has been widely circulated by my Department to all schools, colleges of further education, universities and other education interests.
Copies have been sent to representatives of industry and business, to community groups and to all Members of this House. It is available in public libraries and on the Department’s web site, and the full text of the research briefing summarising the findings was carried in two daily newspapers.
The publication of the report has provoked extensive public, political and media interest and initiated a major public debate on selection and the structure of post-primary education. My strong sense of the public mood, which has been confirmed by the response to the publication of the research, is that there is widespread dissatisfaction in the community with aspects of our present education system, and there is an overwhelming desire for change.
There is less consensus or clarity, however, on what that change should entail. I am therefore very determined that there should be an open and informed public debate on the future shape of post-primary education. I am also determined that the debate should be structured in a way that enables views to be received, opinions and evidence to be presented and analysed, and proposals for change to be developed.
Public confidence in the objectivity and fairness of the review process is of paramount importance, and to promote this I have decided to establish an independent review body to examine the future arrangements for post-primary education. The review body will comprise up to nine members, and will be chaired by Mr Gerry Burns, the former ombudsman and previously chief executive of Fermanagh District Council. I am very pleased that he has agreed to take on this task, and I am confident that he will see it through to a successful conclusion. I have already consulted with my ministerial Colleagues and the Education Committee on the composition of the review body and will finalise the membership shortly. The review body will be supported by a panel of four education advisers. There will be one each from Scotland, England and the South, along with a local adviser, Prof Tony Gallagher, who led the selection research team. I have also agreed, on the back of discussions with the Education Committee, to consider whether a further local person can be added.
In addition, an education consultative forum will be established, comprising our principal education partners and representatives of a wide range of opinion on selection. The consultative forum is intended to provide information, ideas and advice to assist the review body in addressing the matters set out in its terms of reference, and in particular to advise on the practical implications of any proposed changes to post-primary education arrangements. I expect the review body and its supporting arrangements to be fully established by the end of this month.
The review body’s terms of reference are very wide-ranging. The body will be mandated to consider research and other relevant information and to undertake widespread consultation in order to identify and consider key issues arising from the current selective system of post-primary education. It will assess the extent to which the current arrangements for post-primary education meet the needs and aspirations of children and their parents and the requirements of the economy and society. It will report to me its conclusions and recommendations on the future arrangements for post-primary education.
The review body will be specifically asked to address a range of important issues, such as the age or ages at which transfer should occur; the administrative arrangements for transfer; the implications for the curriculum, school structure, further education, higher education, training and the economy; and the costs, timing and phasing of any revised arrangements. I expect the review body to report by the end of May 2001. The report will be published. I will then consider the recommendations in the report in consultation with the Executive Committee, the Education Committee and this House before deciding on how best to take them forward.
Quite a number of issues were raised in the course of the debate, and —

Mr Joe Byrne: The current selection system in Northern Ireland is primarily what I call a supply-side-determined system. In other words, the numbers who are successful are determined by the total number of grammar school places in Northern Ireland. It is therefore not a fair and balanced system. Does the Minister accept that it is primarily the total number of grammar school places that drives the current system?

Mr Martin McGuinness: It is important that people recognise and understand that this is not just a review of the 11-plus. This is a review of post-primary education and how we can put in place the best possible education system for all our children. In the course of the review there will be a huge responsibility on everyone involved, including the review body, the consultative education forum and the advisers, to consider every aspect of education. We need to deal with the issues which Ms Lewsley and Ms McWilliams raised. Education is not just about preparing people for academia. Yes, it is important that we produce academics, but it is also important that we see education as preparing children for a future in a rapidly evolving world in technological terms.
Prof Gallagher raised the issue of the options. He outlined five that are around at this time. They are not exclusive. The review body has the right, under its terms of reference, to broaden the issues beyond the five options laid down in the report.
The Professor raised the issue of publicity points. It is important that the general population has access to information on how to make a submission to the review body. I have no doubt whatsoever that one of the most important debates on education is going to begin next month. It is vital that everyone understands how he or she can access the review body and make their contribution.
Mr Kennedy raised the range of the bodies and the relationships among them. The education advisers will be drawn from England, Scotland and the South and will include Prof Gallagher, who undertook the research. For Prof Gallagher to be there is a huge benefit because of the service that he has provided. Also, the participation of Prof John Coolahan from Maynooth University, who has agreed to serve on that body, will bring an Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) perspective. He has undertaken a considerable amount of work for that organisation.
The remaining two places will be filled shortly, and the advisers will provide a source of education expertise and bring a breadth of vision and a range of different perspectives to bear on the deliberations of the body. However, it will be for the review body to decide how, and to what extent, it wishes to use the advisers.
The education consultative forum is intended to provide information, ideas and advice to assist the review body in addressing the matters set out in its terms of reference and, in particular, to advise on the practical implications of any proposed changes to post-primary education arrangements. The forum forms part of the support arrangements, and it is up to the review body to determine the precise role it wishes the forum to play.
Mr Kennedy raised the issue of timescales and seminars and whether there was some confusion. Two dissemination seminars have been organised in each board area to provide the opportunity for school principals and other education interests to listen to the findings and raise questions. I must stress that these are entirely separate from the public meetings which the review body is organising for November and December. There will be 17 or 18 public meetings across the North.
It is vitally important that the public understands that. Danny Kennedy referred to the prospect of there being a meeting shortly between Gerry Burns and the Education Committee, and I am hopeful that that will happen — possibly next Thursday. Education has a leading role to play, and I have made it clear, in the course of all my discussions and deliberations with the different educational interest groups, that I value a positive and constructive approach to this debate. This debate has been conducted in a positive and constructive manner. It sets a good example, and everybody in the public would do well to consider what has happened in the House tonight. People have approached this in a very sensible fashion and, as Minister of Education, I know that if we are to deal with this in a sensible fashion, then the best way is to achieve as much consensus as we possibly can. That is vitally important. I value the relationship with the Education Committee and with all of the educational interest groups which are going to embark on this very important debate.
Sammy Wilson raised the issue of the lack of involvement of the Assembly and the Education Committee —

Ms Jane Morrice: I ask the Minister to draw his remarks to a close.

Mr Martin McGuinness: It is important to say that there is no predetermined or favoured outcome. The review body will consider all the options. The Education Committee and the Executive Committee have been consulted on the membership and terms of reference of the review body. I have met with the Committee, and Gerry Burns is going to meet with it. The Assembly, the Executive and the Education Committee will be consulted on the review body’s proposals, and any legislation will, of course, be debated in the Assembly and the Education Committee.
There are other points that I wish to respond to, but we do not have the time. I will respond in writing to the other questions that have been raised.
The last thing I want to say is that I was to present prizes in a high school in County Derry at 7.30 tonight. Perhaps it is not important to a lot of people, but it is important to me. I am obviously not going to be there. It is incumbent upon everybody to consider — especially when one is asked to draw one’s remarks to a close before having had the opportunity to respond to all of the issues — that there are many disappointed children out there who thought this morning that I was coming, and who are now wondering why I did not turn up. I hope that they will hear of this debate in the morning.

Mr Ivan Davis: I endorse the Minister’s remarks. Some Members have sat this evening and did not get the opportunity to speak in the debate because other Members spoke on and on, despite the ruling from the Chair. Members should bear that in mind. Members who are prepared to sit here in the evening for a debate should have an opportunity to contribute.

Mr Martin McGuinness: I have almost finished, and I appreciate that there is pressure on people. However, I want to say that this is a vitally important issue. It is a hugely important educational and social issue. I was impressed with the eloquence of Members tonight, particularly those who spoke about the implications of this for society and for the community. Their concerns need to be taken on board very seriously.
This is one of the most important issues that I am going to deal with in the course of my stewardship of the Department of Education. If we continue in this very constructive vein, I have no doubt that this Assembly and my Department can make a huge contribution towards enhancing the education of all our children in the future.

Mr Jim Wells: Madam Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to the remarks made by Mr Davis. I ask for an assurance from you that, should this issue come before the Assembly again, more than two hours will be allocated to it and that it will not be held well into the evening. I do not know who made this decision, but a decision to allocate two hours to perhaps one of the most important decisions we will ever make — on the future of our children’s education — is totally inadequate.
There are many disappointed people here this evening who wished to speak and were not given an opportunity. This must not happen again.

Ms Jane Morrice: May I explain to Members who are not aware of the procedures that the time allocation for Assembly debates is set by the Business Committee and therefore by the party Whips. It would be better to give this advice to them so that they can recommend to the Business Committee accordingly.
I do declare a slight conflict of interest as my son is due to sit the 11-plus next year.

Mr Tommy Gallagher: As others have said, this has been a very constructive debate so it is very easy for me to sum up, and I do not intend to take very long.
I too was impressed by the contributions. All Members have a genuine feel for education and a concern about what it should deliver to the most important group in society, our young people. While different views were expressed, I feel it was right to have the debate. We can see the different standpoints more clearly, and that is no bad thing.
We had a graphic account from Mr Billy Hutchinson on people’s educational experiences in his area. He made a valid point about teacher exchanges. We have very little teacher mobility in Northern Ireland. Teachers tend to start work in a school and to stay there. Through this consultation we should look at how the system could benefit from movement of teachers — not long-term placements, but some experience in different localities and in different types of schools.

Mr Oliver Gibson: I listened with some interest tonight, but school management was not mentioned. A successful school must have successful management. The current system is probably feudal and is a result of transfers from religious institutions that took place well before anyone here was born. School management is vital, and someone has to make a wise choice that does not depend on social needs, poverty, or any of those things. It does depend on the quality of teaching. Can we find someone with the ability to make a wise choice?

Mr Tommy Gallagher: I agree that we should place great emphasis on the quality of management.
During the input from Mr Hutchinson the issue of parental apathy was raised. I am sure many of us have experienced that. This is something we should look at because if we can improve parental attitudes, the value the community places on education will increase.
At the end of the summary report the authors recommend that before we get too heavily into the types of structures we would like to see we should look at the objectives of education — the social, educational and economic objectives. Once we have looked at those objectives, we can move on and look at the structures.
I think that that is useful advice to keep in mind. We are better informed for having this debate. That will stand us in good stead because at the end of the day it is up to us to take decisions about the best way forward.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly notes the recent report ‘The Effects of the Selective System of Secondary Education in Northern Ireland’ and calls for wide-ranging consultations involving all of the education partners about the best way forward for post-primary education.
Adjourned at 7.46 pm.